Deletion of Elephants Are Not Birds

Comment: Having an ISBN doesn't mean it's notable. The article in its current state reads as an advertisement. I wouldn't say it meets , as it's only being covered by a few  and only for the fact it's not being sold on the Amazon store due to its transphobic content because it's chosen not to sell via Amazon and due to its anti-trans content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK||WP:RS)

Comment: The appropriate subject-specific guideline is , which requires that the "book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Superficially, there are some sources, but they're mostly about the manufactured controversy around its publication, so we might disqualify them as . Ideally, we want to see substantial reviews of the contents of the book itself, not just tabloid stories about its release. If it is in fact notable, no matter how offensive its contents, we should have a neutral article about it, including criticism: there are many similar examples in :Category:Propaganda books and pamphlets. However the current contents are mostly unsourced fluff about the non-notable publisher
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK||WP:NOTNEWS)