Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Bullock

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Bullock[edit]

[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)

Known for a single event; all coverage is a result of a viral TikTok video. Possibly (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is true that all coverage is the result of a viral TikTok video, but the coverage does not solely focus on the video. Most of the articles (and there are a lot; see also the list on Talk:Morgan Bullock) include a decent amount of information about her history and who she is in general in addition to the information about the video and subsequent attention. (Should I note that I created this article?) Aerin17 (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article does not meet WP:BLP1E. The events caused by the event of going viral should be treated as separate events from the event of going viral. Apart from that, the subject is unlikely to be a WP:LOWPROFILE individual. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 08:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the subject is not a a low-profile individual as outlined in WP:BLP1E, as she has happily engaged in high-profile interviews with multiple programs and news agencies – BBC News and Good Morning America included – and published an article about her experience in The Guardian. From what I found while searching for sources last night, she furthermore will be performing at relatively high-profile venues this year such as New York City's St. Patrick's Day parade and the St. Brigid's Day Concert in Pittsburgh. In short, I seriously doubt the subject "has not sought or desired the attention" associated with the event, though I think Aseleste's argument above about separating the event that went viral and going viral itself is a massive stretch, and one that's not necessary to establish that BLP1E does not apply here. As far as notability is concerned, so long as we've determined BLP1E doesn't apply, I believe the citations both used in the article and gathered on the article's talk page easily clear the WP:GNG. Potential biases in favor of my vote include: 1) I was asked to participate in this discussion by the article's creator. However, I found this discussion organically before I saw their request, and moreover, the request very clearly met WP:APPNOTE. 2) I contributed substantially to the article, in large part to help establish the subject's notability and remove the notability issue tag. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What it boils down to is that if she had not posted a video to TikTok, we would not have this page. The subsequent coverage is all over the period of five months, as far as I can see. So ask yourself, is posting the video an important event? No. Is the dance itself an important event? No. Does the coverage talk about anything notable about her beyond the fact she uploaded a popular video? No. The story here can be abbreviated as "girl posted a video of herself dancing. Video went viral." See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E. Possibly (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you just activated my trap card. Nah, just kidding, of course. All joking aside, I decided to do a bit more research today since my late-night editing usually contains oversights, and I realized I'd completely skipped over two articles about Bullock's involvement in Ireland's new diaspora strategy. Not only do I still believe WP:BLP1E's second criteria is not met (which in itself is one of three conditions that must each be met to exclude the article per the standard set forth), but I now believe its first criteria isn't met either, as we now have two reliable sources covering Bullock in the context of another, less dominant event. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of those articles mentions the dispora strategy for a single sentence. See WP:BIO1E, not WP:BLP1E. I never suggested she meets the latter. Possibly (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went and read WP:BIO1E. It says, "It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event." She became famous because of the viral video, but she's also notable for the diaspora strategy, even if that event isn't as significant; and it will only continue to become more significant as it goes into effect. Aerin17 (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes lots of things could happen to make her become notable... in the future. This diaspora strategy coverage is just hot air. Possibly (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2021 (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.