Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Guide to Human Conduct (2nd nomination)
Fails  and . There are no independent reliable sources discussing this, and none of the subject's defenders have been able to provide anything. We've had various links to the author's own work, and broken links, and a reference to a paper ZCommunications which seems to publish user-submitted content and certainly isn't a scholarly journal. The chief claim advanced for notability is  #4.  To justify this I would require (1) reliable evidence showing Sarkar/Anandamurti's work is used in education ("Notability requires verifiable evidence"); (2) evidence that it is widely used, not just at 1 or 2 institutions, and preferably at institutions which are not closely linked; (3) that the book is "independent" and not written largely for use in educational institutions; (4) that it considered is a "major work in philosophy, literature, science", or another area of knowledge. Lastly the principles in NBOOK are guidelines indicating a work that is likely to have third-party sources, and if there are no 3rd-party sources, we can still delete or merge to the author's page. Wikipedia articles on books should not be simple summaries/descriptions, but must have critical commentary and background information (see  for an essay
— User:Colapeninsula, 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NBOOK||WP:GNG||WP:NBOOK||WP:SNOWFLAKE (Wikipedia:Notability)