Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windswept House: A Vatican Novel
The NYT article is repeated by two editors. The Forbes quote is unsupported by Anthony, although it may indeed be verifiable. Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews review almost every book that's published. Anthony, Martin ''does'' have his own article. This is the book we're talking about, not the author. Despite your statement, Anthony, about "motive", you just recently tried to restore the offensive and policy non-compliant material about who each character equates to in real life (according to the author and whatever sources support the "key"). Unfortunately, the |notability guideline for having a book article at Wikipedia is very low. The only criterion this particular book could fit into is the reviews, and it's a close call. I would exclude Kirkus and PW for the reason stated above, and we are left with the Times and the Spartunburg papers (can't address the Forbes reference because I haven't seen the review, if indeed it's a review). I don't think the coverage is pervasive enough or of significant depth to include the book. I remind everyone that it is only a guideline and can be overridden by consensus: "meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the book" and "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply
— User:Bbb23, 15:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NBOOK (Wikipedia:Notability)