Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Buscón

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 speedy keep. the wub "?!" 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] El Buscón

El Buscón (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No significance at all. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 17:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns! I think we should keep it. El Buscón was one of the first picaresque novels, written by the very well-known poet and playwright Francisco de Quevedo. I do need some time to expand it so that it matches or at least comes close to matching the length of the Spanish Wikipedia article on the same subject: which is at: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Busc%C3%B3n Thanks! --Polylerus (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • What happened to assuming good faith and giving articles more than two minutes to grow before nominating for AfD? Keep and tag for notability and sources and per official policy let the process work. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    I note for the record, btw, that the novel almost certainly passes WP:BK #5, even if no secondary sources appeared. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep An English translation (The Swindler) is part of the Penguin Classics series [1]. I think we can spare room for all of the Penguin Classics. Zagalejo^^^ 18:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Ridiculous. One of the most important prose works by one of the greatest Spanish writers. --Folantin (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zagalejo. JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There were almost no novels in any language in 1626. This came with two primary source links, and the first page of Google results for the term is almost entirely devoted to it. New page patrollers must be more cautious. --Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 8 January 2008 (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.