Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bethlehem Shoals

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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bethlehem Shoals

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

I came across this page via this section at WP:BLP/N, where someone claimed that Shoals (also known as Nathaniel Friedman) did not want the page anymore and that people were using it as a place to harass Shoals because of his Twitter comment. Given some of the edits, I can see the rationale. From the post at BLP/N, Shoals has e-mailed Wikipedia to verify his identity and state that he wants the page removed. I'm not sure if he's trying to overall withdraw from the Internet or not, although I'll note that his Twitter account is now protected and FreeDarko hasn't been active since 2011. (I have to say supposedly because it's possible that this isn't someone who is in direct contact with Shoals. I will say that as far as I can see, none of the vandalism on the article included attempts to delete the page so it makes it somewhat more likely that the request is legit.)

The editor also makes the justification that Shoals isn't really all that noteworthy in and of himself, which is asserted by the sources on the page, which are primary in one form or another. (Links to his writing, links to places he writes for.) A search predominantly brought up results about his Twitter comment, something that wouldn’t be big enough to warrant keeping an article on that basis alone per WP:BLP. The guy exists and has written for notable organizations, but this in and of itself doesn't give notability as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.

I found some mention here and there, the best of which were an article by Inverse and inclusion in this journal article about sports blogging. There were some mentions here and there, but not a huge amount when you get down to it. His book received some trade reviews, but not a huge amount. It’s enough to where we could argue a general, weak assertion of notability, however if the author himself wants the article gone then I don’t know that we’d lose a whole lot by deleting it. I'm sort of neutral-ish on this, so I don't particularly mind this being kept but again - the notability here is so borderline that I don't think that this would make a huge impact if it was gone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty generic sportswriter overall. If there was regular highlighting of their writing I could see some notability, but here I'm just seeing a singular pop based on their Twitter activity and back to being just a part of mainly collaborative sites with not much standout work. Nate • (chatter) 05:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hi, this is the subject himself. I was told to type here in to order to precipitate getting this page removed. Hi trolls. I emailed Wikipedia but never heard back; I don't think I'm noteworthy enough to warrant a Wikipedia page and this thing is just turning into a source of headache for both you guys and me. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerminTax (talk • contribs) 10:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to Wikipedia editors who are making a sincere effort to assist you here as "trolls" is really bad form. Please read WP:AGF. Peacock (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was referring to the people who were vandalizing the article prior to it getting protected, as it's reasonable to expect that a few might wander into the AfD. I was actually expecting a few comments here and there, but it looks like the vandals have moved on to other targets, as is so frequently the case with lulz seekers and vandals. In any case, I doubt that this article will survive the AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was talking about the people vandalizing the page and yes, I was fully expecting some of them might end up here because they've been pretty unrelenting elsewhere. I didn't set up this page and while it's flattering that someone did, at this point I'd prefer it go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerminTax (talk • contribs) 07:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This biography was originally written by a single purpose account based on what are essentially primary sources (most often the sign of an autobiograpy). Now that the subject has done something that has brought negative attention to himself, the article has been briefly expanded with reliable secondary sources. But because of that negative attention, the subject now wishes to have the article deleted. To me, this article now falls under WP:BLP1E - notability has not been established apart from that one unfortunate event. Peacock (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2016 (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.