Deletion of Why I Will Never Ever Ever Ever Have Enough Time to Read This Book

Comment: per notability established. Did the nom not read 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: Meets , has multiple references including Publisher's Weekly
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: technically it does meet  and by the noms claims that reviews alone do not establish notability, a large number of film, book, and television series articles would have to be deleted. That said, I can also see his point that this is not a very notable book. Four reviews, one of which is not even used only noted as having been done. If this were part of a series, I'd argue to merge it there, but as it is not, deletion isn't the right option. I do think Aymatth2 has a good idea, though, of merging it to the author article, as it seems there is very little else to say about this book other than what is there. No production/creation/conception type info, and only a handful of reviews
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: There are a lot of magazines for book reviews (like School Library Journal, for example) and while they do contain "reviews", they are rather short, and, I would argue, what should be labeled as "trivial" for . In my opinion, an article like this for every book reviewed in School Library Journal would be frankly quite ridiculous; I don't think that picture books or some children's books should have articles if they aren't notable and with significant reviews/references. I would be in favour of merging to the author article—that seems to me to be the best option
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: sources cited including reviews and the nomination smacks of  at least in terms of Wikipedia policy regarding the validity of reviews as viable sources. If the nom really feels this sort of source is not substantial enough, I recommend he or she push for policy change
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: to Remy Charlip and create a section on the book. The author has written over 29 books, and I am not convinced that this one is particularly notable. The sources indicate simply that it exists, not that it is notable.  says of the sources: "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary" - the direct quotes from the reviews offer little beyond the plot summary that the main character is reading the same book we are reading. There is nothing within the article that exists, nor the direct quotes, to assert notability. List of Mr. Men|This is an example of how to deal with the books of a prolific writer - each of the books within this detailed list would have received a considerable amount of reviews, yet it is accepted that it is the series itself that is notable, not the individual books
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: Reviews provide critical commentary that allow the article to grow beyond a simple plot summary.  This is the fundamental part of  and this article provides references to those reviews.  I have added a quote from the School Library Journal review to the article to provide more detail to the reception section
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: The notability guideline for books is , not an editors opinion of what is notable within the context of 'books published in 200X'.  This book clearly has multiple reliable source reviews (Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Book Links and School Library Journal) that allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary so it passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK||WP:BK)

Comment: meets  without difficulty.  Arguments on why we should ignore the usual standards just don't cut the mustard
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)