Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Myth of the Zodiac Killer
to Zodiac Killer#Public speculation - Quite simply, the book itself is not notable.  Of the sources presented in the current article, only the Mel Magazine and El Confidencial articles could be considered to be significant coverage at all.  The rest of the sources are either not about the book/author at all and just about the Zodiac Killer (most of them), not secondary (the interviews and the book itself) or just a one-sentence mention (the ABC article).  And while the two sources that are actually relevant do talk extensively on the author and his theories, they really do not talk much about the book itself at all.  The Mel Magazine article, which is the single most extensive article on the author, does not even mention the book.  I tried searching for any possible reviews or other coverage in reliable source that could actually fulfil , and was unable to find anything.  I do think the coverage on Horan's theories warrants it at least being mentioned in the appropriate section of the main Zodiac Killer article, which it already is, but there is nothing to indicate that his self-published book on them garnered enough notability to justify an independent article
— User:Rorshacma, 17:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:NBOOK (Wikipedia:Notability)