Deletion of The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (3rd nomination)

Comment: Notability established, and no |censorship on Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CENSORSHIP)

Comment: I am astounded, that as of yet, no editor has used the criteria at  to justify keeping this article, instead accusing me of bad faith, of being a sock, of having a conflict of interest, using the wrong criteria and using the 'censorship' excuse. What a disappointing deletion discussion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: You wanted comments, so here's one. All  asks for is 2 independent non-trivial RS reviews ("The book has been the subject1 of two or more non-trivial2 published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself"), and this book has had more than that. Launching an RFC is forum-shopping, and beating a dead horse. Don't be surprized if people wonder about your motives
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: Plenty of RS already cited in the article, including influential journals and newspapers like ''The Middle East Journal'' and ''Asia Times''. Nom may also have a  problem by PRODing (on the 29th) five  articles https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bibliography_of_books_critical_of_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=659773076,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Force_of_Reason&diff=prev&oldid=659773476,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Myth_of_Islamic_Tolerance&diff=prev&oldid=659773618,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Onward_Muslim_Soldiers&diff=prev&oldid=659773867,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Politically_Incorrect_Guide_to_Islam_%28And_the_Crusades%29&diff=prev&oldid=659773991 on books critical of Islam while elsewhere !voting Keep on obviously less worldly-publicly-visible entities like the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghanistan International Bank|Afghanistan International Bank. Also potential sock (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=00000000000000&limit=5500&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=AusLondonder two-week-old account whose first edit consisted of creating a large article with multiple sections containing complex forms
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: passes  and  per above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK||WP:GNG)

Comment: Passes GNG, as being reported on and cite, possibly  nom
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: The article currently boasts what appear to be '''nine''' references, almost all of which are exclusively coverage of the book itself. The nominator him/herself quotes , which explicitly states that "reviews" are acceptable coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: still meets .  Although the last two afds resulted in keep, see  "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, ... Thus, articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NTEMP)