Deletion of The Irrational Atheist (2nd nomination)

Comment: Meets  criteria #1 as per sources presented above by {{u|Cunard}}; the book has been reviewed by multiple independent reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BKCRIT)

Comment: Fails . I see no reviews which both cover this in depth and are published in reliable sources. Sources like Creation Magazine are unreliable for almost anything, nevermind a book review for a book about atheism. And before you say "they're reliable for their own opinions", yes, but we can't base an encyclopedia article on opinions in biased sources. Publisher Weekly sounds like a good one, but it's a brief mention, not a real review. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: meets  with multiple |reliable reviews, the three i included, and also the ''First Things'' review added above by {{u|Cunard
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK||WP:RS)

Comment: have found these reviews - ''Exploding the False Claims of the New Atheists'' in New Oxford Review - "What makes Day's book entertaining is his exuberant language .. Yet the humor doesn't get in the way of subtle analysis, for he lays bare Dawkins's "incessant shell games," Harris's "exercises in self-parody," and Hitchens's "epic feat of intellectual self-evisceration.""http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1108-gardiner, ''Dawkins’ Debunkers A Reading List '' in Catholic Answers - "If you want facts and statistics to counter atheist arguments, this is your book."http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/dawkins%E2%80%99-debunkers, ''Excellent refutation of ‘new atheists’ flawed by heterodox open theism'' at Creation Ministries International|Creation.com - "The Irrational Atheist is a good refutation of many core ‘New Atheist’ arguments, if flawed by Day’s open theism."http://creation.com/review-irrational-atheist-by-vox-day, so close to meeting 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)