Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paco Yunque


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Favonian (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Paco Yunque

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not seem to be a notable book. No sources provided, no favorable google results. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 13:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am finding plenty of sources on Google news - http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Paco+Yunque%22, 17:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Work of a notable figure in literature. It's tough going through machine translation, but the news articles would indicate that this work is a well known one in Spanish speaking countries. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Addiitonal comment - A search in Google Books for English language literary criticism shows that it has attracted attention in terms of critical analysis:, , . -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A Google search for "César Vallejo" "Paco Yunque" returns 11,000 hits. A glance at César Vallejo reveals that this is a notable children's story by a notable author. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I am finding plenty of discussion, even book-length studies of this work in Google Books (even in English):    What is particularly worrying is that this article was nominated for deletion within 6 minutes of its creation: this can have a profoundly dispiriting effect on a new contributor, who may well have intended to expand the article. -- JN  466  12:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.