Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenager Business

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Teenager Business}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Teenager Business}})

Non-notable self-published book. I redirected it to the author (of dubious notability as well), but was reverted. Sources are extremely local, and the sources from WSAZ and WDTV are identical anyway. Book has gotten no further attention at all[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Felinton%22+%22Teenager+Business%22&sca_esv=4808aced13c4ef62&rlz=1C1GCEB_enBE1103BE1103&biw=1536&bih=738&ei=DHXAZ5jBENOdkdUPmPv9uAw&ved=0ahUKEwiY94nQhuSLAxXTTqQEHZh9H8cQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22Felinton%22+%22Teenager+Business%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHiJGZWxpbnRvbiIgIlRlZW5hZ2VyIEJ1c2luZXNzIkjOBVAAWJ0DcAB4AJABAJgBUKABnwGqAQEyuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEBmAIAoAIAmAMAkgcAoAeoAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp], all we have are some "local person did something", similar to how such sources would describe the show of a local amateur theatre group or some other minor event or happening. Fram (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Business. Fram (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• :*Delete support deletion for reasons outlined by Fram. Insufficient coverage to suggest that the book is notable. The article gives very little meaningful detail about the book, beyond that it is self-published and available for purchase on Amazon.
• :Boredintheevening (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: The Herald Dispatch is the only "review" I can pull up. We're now three years later and nothing's been published, no book reviews, or any critical notice. Likely not passing notability for books and I don't see anything beyond a flash of publicity when it came out. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: One of the citations was a duplicate of the other - it was the same story, just published in two slightly different websites. It looks like it's a case of news outlet and its affiliate using the same stories. I also removed the mention of this being available to purchase on Amazon. That's kind of a given of any book published in the US, that one could buy it somewhere and including it can be seen as promotional - I'm including this here to be transparent about the changes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. There just isn't any coverage out there that wasn't already in the article. This has received little coverage, all of which is very local as stated by Fram. Now local coverage can still be used, it just might not always be as strong as a non-local source. In this situation the coverage just isn't plentiful enough to establish notability. TBH, the author's article is of also dubious notability given that the sourcing on that is also almost entirely local. The only non-local coverage isn't about the person in question but rather a protest in which they were a participant. It's unclear if they were one of the people who planned the walkout or a participant who was interviewed - the sources I can access are kind of unclear. It's already covered in the school article as well - could use a few more lines about the walkout and lawsuit. It looks like that's the only thing he's received any sort of non-local coverage for. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Agree as per nom. If this book turns out to be a bestseller and if it can be a good yardstick of how a self-help inspirational life journey book should be something in the mould of Mark Manson's The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck, then it may warrant a standalone article in the future. But for now, it can be regarded as a typical case of WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Unsure. While I don't see much of value here, I don't want to dismiss local coverage, and the author potentially has at least minimal notability. For full disclosure, while I don't know any of the Felintons, this does relate to my local community and local events, and I'm familiar with regional media. But I would suggest potentially merging this into the author's article, noting of course that his article might also come up for AFD at some point. P Aculeius (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I put his article up for AFD. Ynsfial (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete It's a self published book with very weak coverage after mutiple years. Ynsfial (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. The article has three sources and they are all interviews of the author, which don't qualify for WP:NBOOK criterion #1: {{tq|This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.}} When we remove those, there's nothing left for notability. Astaire (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.