Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greek Seaman


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The Greek Seaman

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a BLP1E and should be deleted. The fact that it's at the title of the book rather than the author's name doesn't change the BLP violation at play here. The book itself lacks the kinds of reviews we'd expect a book to have instead we just have coverage of an internet fight. For instance "Big Al", the blogger who started this all, wouldn't normally be considered a reliable enough source to count for notability under WP:NBOOK. The Internet's Main Character of the Day should not have Wikipedia articles for time immemorial and so this non-notable topic should be deleted. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I was actually going to nominate this if barkeep hadn't. This article is, for lack of a better word, terrible bordering on a BLP vio but it's very much WP:BLP1E. Neither she nor the book are or were notable - they received very minor coverage based on a kerfuffle with an unknown blogger. Even the Guardian piece is just an op-ed. CUPIDICAE💕  19:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I remember when this lit up the respective ire of the book blogging community, as I was a semi-active participant back in those days. This got a ton of coverage when it happened back in 2011, which can be evidenced in the article. I think that the coverage was partially fueled by the fact that there were actually quite a few such author interactions aimed at reviewers, so it kind of produced a perfect storm of sorts. Aware that there was ample interest in these "author meltdowns" as they were called in the community, the news outlets saw an easy news story since there was a built in audience as far as the blogging communities go. Why do I mention this? Because I want to explain how something like this got coverage in the first place and why ultimately this shouldn't count towards notability. Unlike some of the other kerfuffles, this has gotten no coverage past that point in time. It was ultimately just an easy way to get clicks on pages, as they knew that it would get passed around quickly and widely. Outrage sells and it was easy to portray something like this as the "author who can't take criticism against average reviewer/blogger". While this is still somewhat known around the book blogging world AFAIK, it's never turned into more coverage past that flurry of coverage in 2011. No academics or scholars have written on it, no newspapers have reflected on it, nor has the book blogging world. It's just a case of an author making a very stupid decision and it ending up getting reported on worldwide. This is of no lasting importance despite the wide amount of coverage and as such, spectacularly fails WP:BLP1E. We don't need a lasting monument to one person's mistake. If the book had gained any other coverage such as actual reviews and such aside from the kerfuffle then I may argue otherwise but that is very much not the case here. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to vote for Delete too, as Reader of the Pack makes a good point here. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Trying to market the person by writing a book page. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't think that the page was written to market the author or the book, rather to cover the kerfuffle. Someone with the same name as the author did edit the page in 2013, but it was just to add a link to the author's apology in the EL section. They also added a link to a play that was supposed to have been inspired by the Guardian writeup, but neither addition gives off the impression that they were trying to promote themselves. More just to make sure the apology link was there. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I did take a look at the play to see if it could count towards notability, but it didn't really get much attention. This is one of the better sources for it out there. It's not enough to make me change my opinion on this. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing beyond BLP1E. Shankargb (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like the content is more about the events surrounding the book rather than the book itself so I'm going to evaluate it based off of WP:EVENT rather than WP:NBOOK. Per ReaderofthePack, most coverage appears to be from around the brief point of interest in 2011-ish, which would suggest that it fails WP:PERSISTENCE. According WP:EVENTCRITERIA #4, we should avoid stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena. And I don't see this internet spat between two people as something that has become more than a brief point of interest, despite the number of opinion pieces covering it. — BriefEdits (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.