Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beetle Boy

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. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beetle Boy[edit]

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

Not notable - fails GNG Exemplo347 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page popped up on the new pages feed for the lack of referencing, and some Wikifying would go a long way. Passes #1 on WP:BKCRIT per these three reviews, [1], [2], [3], which should also help with GNG. Some of the links on the page also help with GNG, like this Guardian listing [4]. Yvarta (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. , but delete the article on te author. An author of a single book is not notable--it;'s beter to have the article on the book. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, with notable exceptions like Harper Lee. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (warning, a bit of humor first), GGGGRRRRR!!, nominator must have issues with beetles, maybe was the recipient of beetle pranks (big hairy spider in the bed, bugs in breakfast cereal etc.) when younger, may need a trouting or a beetling(?), anyhoo, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, book has had numerous reviews from both sides of the pond including The Guardian, School Library Journal, Booktrust, Booklist, Horn Book Guide, School Library Connection, Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, AudioFile, have updated article to reflect this. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of reliable sources. Shouldn't be deleted but needs cleanup. Missjastersgarden (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reception sections includes reliable sources. The article could use expansion. Dimadick (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2017 (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.