Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Ralph

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Ralph[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)

Although I am a long-term editor, we are all always learning and for this reason I am suggesting that my own article, Ethan Ralph,

be deleted (created on 1 January 2021) for failing both the WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Before I explain exactly what led me to carefully consider these pages in light of Ralph's page, ultimately changing my mind on my own work, I will make the main argument:

the coverage of Ralph is not significant coverage, it is in almost all cases trivial. A WP:BLP1E, an assault on a police officer, resulted in the majority of the high-quality sources (WaPo, BI), which for the most part discuss only that incident; further…
the #Healstream controversy, which I once found significant proof of Ralph's notability, was not thought so by sources: all sources on this, such as WSJ, use Ralph only as an example to put his alleged abuse of Super Chats in a broader context; and finally
all other sources are either WP:SPS or make trivial mention of Ralph.

The content dispute which led to this realization in me goes as follows:

Bilby removed a good deal of one section of the article, writing right wing watch - questionable source. I reinstate the content as their edit contained an obvious grammatical mistake, and I thought this would be fine per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD. However, Bilby then blanks the whole section because this is a BLP (sorry, I forgot this rule), so we have to discuss it on talk before reinstatement. I fail to convince Bilby of my idea to add {{Cite court}}. I then consider using WP:ABOUTSELF for the plea of no contest, but then, on further reflection, I decide: it is time to stop twisting myself into knots. Ralph was not as notable as I thought. I thought that WP:BLP1E would not apply as he seemed to be rising in notability in 2021. When no RS noted his guilty plea for dissemination of revenge porn, I should have read the writing on the wall: Ethan Ralph is a non-notable alt-right pseudo-celebrity and this article should have never been created.

Regards, Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Discrimination, and Virginia. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would be inclined to agree with you here -- the sourcing here is pretty lackluster, and WP:MILL. I do not see WP:SIGCOV, and the stuff he's done doesn't seem inherently notable. Looking through the revision history, even the stuff that got removed is basically window dressing for a nothingburger of an article: some guy was a jackass on the Internet, he got kicked off a website for it, he broke the law, he got arrested, whoopty-doo. Are we writing articles about every guy who gets banned from a website or breaks the law now? jp×g 22:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He picked up some limited coverage during GamerGate, but was not a significant figure even then. Lacks the sustained coverage needed to maintain a BLP. - Bilby (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly the best source here is the one about him getting arrested for getting drunk and taking a swing at a cop, which needless to say does not normally confer notability. Most of the sources are passing mentions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. and jp×g. A WP:BLP1E that thoroughly fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a BLP1E and lacks sustained coverage. The only sources with significant coverage arose from the public intoxication incident in 2016. Having no reliable sources address the more recent revenge porn conviction speaks to a rather low profile. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 02:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Xenomancer (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ˈˈˈKeepˈˈˈ. But revert to include conviction references. The article has had over 10,000 page views in the past month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:4301:2D0:E1DB:C41E:B2E7:E37F (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2022 (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.