Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgann Book

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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morgann Book[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)

The sources provided do not show that the subject meets WP:GNG. None of them offers any analysis and they are full of quotes from the subject. I have found this piece in The New Yorker, which only mentions her superficially. I'm happy to consider further sources, but at the moment I believe the subject is not notable. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, Internet, and Canada. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The four sources in the article are from the CBC and a newspaper local to the area. That's about all I find, and this [1] for a news bit about her, this in Narcity as well [2]. That's GNG. Keep. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Fn 4 in WP:GNG notes a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source, and the two CBC sources Ancaster teen gains TikTok fame with viral Dairy Queen videos (Jan 3, 2021) and WATCH — Dairy Queen TikTok star Morgann Book talks sweet success (CBC Kids News, Feb 24, 2021) seem appropriate to consider as one source, and neither appear to have much independent secondary context or commentary - she promotes her family's business on TikTok and has become popular on that platform. CTV similarly reports Ont. teen makes her family's Dairy Queen Tik Tok-famous (Jan. 6, 2021, based on her statements). Narcity (Jan. 4, 2021) quotes CBC quoting her father about how well the promotion has worked for the business. The Hamilton Spectator also covers her using TikTok to promote her family's business, based on her statements: Taking the cake: How this Hamilton Dairy Queen employee became TikTok famous (Oct. 26, 2020), and Another look at Morgann Book (CanCulture Magazine, April 11, 2022) notes she has started college, has a friend, isn't working at DQ that much, started a YouTube channel, and has hired a manager to "handle all of my emails, brand deals and negotiations; the business side to content creation". The article also includes a "Sponsored Content by Business Blurb Books" source dated Oct. 2, 2021 promoting how much free advertising she has provided to DQ. The lack of sustained, independent and in-depth secondary coverage as well as the generally promotional tenor of the coverage supports deletion per WP:BASIC and WP:PROMO. Beccaynr (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Beccaynr and the article fails NBIO.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 08:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Beccaynr's keen assessment of the sources (or lack thereof). Matt Deres (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The CBC cite is from CBC Hamilton, i.e. the CBC's local news bureau in the subject's own hometown, and thus represents local coverage rather than nationalized coverage — and other than that, we've got coverage from CTV's local affiliate in the same area, the local newspaper, and two things (Business Blurb and Narcity) that are not reliable or WP:GNG-building sources at all. So what we have here is a young woman who has had three pieces of "local teen does stuff" human interest coverage in her own local media market, which is not enough to earn permanent inclusion in an international encyclopedia all by itself — neither the sources themselves, nor the context of what those sources are covering her for, establish that she would pass the ten year test for enduring significance at all. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep if n equals or surpasses two — it also takes into account factors like geographic range and the encyclopedic significance of the context in which the coverage is being given, so hometown human interest coverage in the context of not-inherently-notable activities isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2023 (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.