Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximum 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Boy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NOTBOOK. The only sources that I can find are sales listings, encyclopedia-style websites, library catalogues, and user-created reviews. There are two newspaper articles listed in the references, but the citations are incomplete and I cannot verify their content. Johnj1995 (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and United States of America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I agree that this page needs more sources and needs a cleanup. However, the sources that are used in the "Notes" section show notability due to the real world context, so I think it is worth keeping.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There's coverage in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, but I can't find anything else. I've expanded the WaPo reference in the article, which can be accessed via TWL. With both those sources, it seems that it barely has enough coverage to pass the two review requirement at WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:44, 7 January 2024 (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.