Weak delete. There's a bit of a problem, indeed. Mystery's article was deleted because there just weren't enough sources to show that he has notability outside of a TV show he hosted or The Game. You're correct in that most of the sources mention him and his book briefly. Here's the layout of the current sources for anyone coming into this:
 This focuses on Mystery, with the book being just a brief mention.
 This also briefly mentions Mystery and the book, but they're not even really the focus of the article. The idea of negging is, the book and its author were just the article's lead in.
,  These are short reviews from PW and the LJ. Both are very short and so far these are the only two reviews I found that actually focus on the book itself and don't just use it as a brief mention.
 This mentions the book directly, but it's more just a summary of its contents than an actual review.
I kind of hemmed and hawed over whether or not the sources combined show notability. I do count the PW and LJ sources as RS, but I don't know if they and the other sources really show that this is a notable book. I'm open to debate, but this is just one of those situations where it walks the very thin line of notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep Publisher's Weekly and Library Journal reviews are sufficient. They're short but not trivial, and that's the key: the book meets the GNG, no matter how offensive it may be. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep First great book about seduction.--AeroPsico (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)