Deletion of The Complete History of The Howling

Comment: Upon looking at the sources I thought I'd be voting keep under the multiple reviews prong, but the "reviews" are only promotional material. Fails  and whole thing feels very promotional as opposed to encyclopaedic. Agree with The Gnome that this discussion is a mess and I haven't read any of it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: I can't see any indication that this publication meets 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOKS)

Comment: This discussion is a near total mess. Not just in terms of formatting (which I tried to salvage somewhat so what we can read through the text without a pain in the neck) but mainly of input. Tons of emotional verbiage repeating the same thing, editors https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolabahapple&diff=843462630&oldid=843409317 asking other editors to "save" their article (they must be under the illusion that they |own the text they create!), and opinions offered without the slightest concern for policy, e.g. "I am using this article in my coursework." The sooner this is closed down, one way or another, the better for everyone involved
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN)

Comment: This article meets the definition of a : the article is supposedly about a book, but almost all the content in the article is about the subject of the book (i.e., The Howling (franchise)|the Howling franchise
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: does not meet  or , here are my notes on the references cited in the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NBOOK)

Comment: Does not meet . This book should be referenced on the page for The Howling as a see also
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NB)