Okay, let's see. First, the information is still accessible if one has administrator access to the system; it can be e-mailed to you if you want.
Second: notability for books, well... let's see. Who wrote it? Chiquis Barron. Who's that? She's the one who wrote the book. Anything else about her? Is she notable for any reasons aside from having written this book? Well, if she is, the article didn't say so. In any case, an article about a book should be focused on the book itself, instead of having a lengthy bio of the author.
Who published the book? Was it one of the major publishers, the ones who get thousands of submissions every month and select only a few dozen a year? Doesn't look like it. Was it one of the specialty niche houses, the ones who get hundreds of submissions every year and select only a few dozen a year? Doesn't look like it. Instead, it's available through.... Lulu.com. Lulu is quite reputable as print-on-demand houses go, but they're still print-on-demand. Being published by Lulu is not an assertion of notability. It doesn't mean that the book is not notable, but it doesn't mean that it is, either.
When I read through the article, what do I see? Well... debut novel, set in Nogales/Tucson... ref to a review on "The US Review of Books"? Hmm. Well, let's see who the US Review of Books is, to judge how much weight to give their opinion. ... oh dear. That's an... interesting business model they have, and if it works for them then good, but it also means that we can't really use "was reviewed in US Review of Books" as an assertion of notability.
What's next... told from perspective of protagonist 'Nena', coming of age, etc, right... Chiquis Barron is like a cross between Joanne Harris and Sue Monk Kidd? Says who? ... ah, says Chiquis Barron's official site. We can't really use that as an assertion of notability either, sorry.
Then the plot summary... Nena, Pilar, Guadelupe, Alex, Ramona alias Sasha, Alex's brother Lalo... not the most objective plot summary in the world ("gorgeous, penetrating, olive-green eyes"? Really?), but then plot summaries don't usually assert notability by themselves anyway, so that's not an issue.
Next comes an author bio. Normally this sort of thing should go in a separate article, but let's have a look at what it says anyway (a book can be notable by virtue of who its author is). Born in, immigrated to, graduated from, wrote her memoirs... nothing particularly special so far... ah, what's this? A grant from the American Association of University Women? Are they particularly involved in novel-writing, authorship, etc? .... Doesn't look it. A grant from Fundación Valparaíso? Hmm... they're kind of low-level, it looks like. A grant from Vermont Studio Center? They're a bit more of a big deal than the Valparaiso, but still... International Women's Writing Guild? More impressive, but "Arizona regional representative for 2002-2003"? No. I'm sorry. This is stuff that would be added for extra flavor, but by itself it's just not enough. There's nothing really here. No substance. If an article got written about Ms Barron and (the stuff I skimmed over in this paragraph) was the only content, that article would get deleted too.
Maybe this book really is notable, and you just did an insufficient job of showing it; that does happen sometimes. I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (books). DS (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)