Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katelyn MacDonald

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. ✗plicit 23:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn MacDonald

[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)

This article seems to be a classic WP:BLP1E; this individual received a burst of viral notability over a couple days in June 2024 for the bell-ringing video. I can't find any independent coverage since that burst of coverage; the only coverage I can find at all is an article from Duke, which is a non-independent source since the subject is an employee of the university chapel. Given that all three provisions of BLP1E are met (the reliable sources cover the person only in relation to a single event, the event itself is non-notable, and the subject remains a low-profile individual), this subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and North Carolina. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Duke Memorial United Methodist Church#Building. Since the viral bell ringing is more interesting as a part of the church history, and the notability standards are not so high, I propose a merge and redirect. A condensed version of the lead as a standalone paragraph at the end of the section and a single source will suffice. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - striking my earlier vote. Agreed that notability is not met. If coverage is sustained, the article can be recreated. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this one-time viral video incident is WP:DUE on that page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete not every viral video needs its own article, see WP:BLP1E. --hroest 20:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most viral tiktoks get a burst of attention and then are swiftly forgotten, it's too soon to say if this will have any lasting significance. Imo !merging and/or !redirecting would be undue weight. Zzz plant (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2025 (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.