Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess Mouse: A Tale of Finland

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. Article now expanded and sourced (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Princess Mouse: A Tale of Finland

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

stub. No evidence of notability. Elvey^(t•c) 16:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches unfortunately found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, entering "The Princess Mouse: A Tale of Finland reviews" in google brings back on 1st 10 pages a review from Publishers Weekly - [1] one from Inis Magazine of Children's Books Ireland [2], and a listing from EBSCO [3] showing additional reviews from the School Librarian, School Library Journal, Booklist, and Kirkus Reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added the above reviews to the article, plus here is another one (also added) from The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books - [4]. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep - sourcing indicates a clear keep per Coolabahapple, Sadads (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced article on a notable book, though I am a bit concerned that there is no mention of the book's topic in the article. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.