Deletion of Rare Objects

Comment: The book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, which notes: A book is notable if it |verifiably meets, through Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources, at least '''one''' of the following criteria:1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. The article lists reviews from the ''Pittsburgh Tribune-Review'', ''Publishers Weekly'', ''Library Journal'', and ''Booklist
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: have added a not so flattering quote from Kirkus Reviews to bring |balance to the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:BALANCE)

Comment: meets , as more than two non-trivial independent reviews
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: I object to the herrypick of quotes in the section on "Reception". The presumably glowing quote from Publisher's Weekly follows a sentence that says: "An intriguing correspondence between May and the shop’s mysterious absentee co-owner brings further entertainment and character insight, though it doesn’t fit seamlessly into the rest of the plot." So the sentence quoted cannot be said to represent the review. Calling any review "favorable" is, IMO, drawing a conclusion that is not factual. We should avoid inserting these kinds of conclusions into articles. I also note that reviews from these publications that specialize in reviews are short (~250-300 words), mostly descriptive of the plot, and rarely do any analysis. They exist for people to decide whether to buy the book, and are not part of literary criticism by any stretch
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)