Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brady Haran


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please 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   keep. j⚛e deckertalk 17:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Brady Haran

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG, his projects some of them do, but him outside of the projects, no. — raeky  t  15:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - The subjesct's projects are notable, but notability is not inherit, he lacks coverage sufficient to establish his own article within WP. Eduemoni↑talk↓  16:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do think that if a person has established several notable projects, then that person themselves becomes more notable because of the projects. I would agree with the argument above if the subject matter were something that didn't have much personal exposure, and so the creator remains largely unknown even when their work is not. But Brady himself prominently features in his videos, so the notability of his videos does establish him as a recognisable personality himself. CodeCat (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Brady has received the South Australian Youth Media Awards for best news report while working as a journalist at the Adelaide Advertiser Newspaper, has received the Ruby TV Awards while working at BBC, has received the Creativity International Awards for best new media, the International Business Award for best public information multimedia, the IChemE Award for best education, the European Excellence Award for best podcast and the PRide Award for best new media, as an independent film-maker. He is one of the most popular producer of educational videos for the web, has produced more than a thousand educational videos, that have been viewed more than 50 million times. He has published articles on Science Magazine and Nature, two of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. He recently received the SPORE award from Science Magazine, whose editor-in-chief called him an "innovator in science education". He currently produces videos for 12 channels on YouTube. If all that don't constitute notability, half of the biographical articles in Wikipedia should be removed, then. The article is a stub and it needs improvements, like writing down all that information, but deleting it would be a silly decision. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - As of once again, a person doesn't become notable because of the projects, when the subject does, this is a exception to the rule, for instance, Gangnam Style became notable, but if PSY didn't tour with Madonna, didn't perform at notable award shows, Psy would remain non-notable, this case is pretty basic the same. Being a producer for videos on YouTube does not consist on notability. Also all (or most of) the awards you mentioned are given to podcasters, which does not suffice notability. Having a article written in Science Magazine also does not sustain notability, but if he has written an article which sprouted focus on his work or on his persona he would be notable. Please check WP:GNG for general notability guideline and WP:BIO, so far, Brady Haran doesn't meet the sufficient criteria for having an article within WP. Every thing you mentioned fails on WP:BLP1E, he has been awarded once for these minor awards, he has written a sole article in each magazine. Edue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 14:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - Hugo, it seems that you have some kind of article ownership over Brady Haran, please be aware that nobody WP:OWNS any article on Wikipedia, any material on Wikipedia is result of collaborative work, it is ok to contest a WP:PROD, but DO NOT remove stub or notability templates. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 14:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please point out where I said I own the article and exactly when I removed a stub template. Please don't make false accusations. How come he fails on WP:BLP1E if I just presented many projects for which he is notable? "but if PSY didn't tour with Madonna, didn't perform at notable award shows, Psy would remain non-notable" But Brady does show up in conferences, he does get interviewed, he is cited in news articles and he is cited in scientific publications. The only reason why this is getting so much controversy is because Brady is popular in the web, and people like Zhu Xiping are not. So Xiping's article is kept, because there is no controversy. "he has been awarded once for these minor awards" You're being biased against his field. The only reason why Usain Bolt is more popular than Feliks Zemdegs is because Olympic Games are far more popular than speedcubing competitions. Zemdegs has an article of his own because he is notable on his field. The same goes for Brady. The SPORE award is one of the most important awards an independent producer of educational videos can receive. He is certainly notable on his field. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The projects are obviously notable, and Haran has been mentioned as a filmmaker in news articles . And by the way, Psy is a terrible counter-example since he is very obviously notable even in the absence of Gagnam Style's Youtube popularity. squibix  (talk)  14:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - It is a hypothetical scenario, where psy would not be notable only for Gangnam Style, and you these articles yet again don't suffice notability, there are mentions, his work is notable, but his persona is not, I presume you are familiar with notability guideline. A person needs in-depth coverage, not just mentions. Notability is not WP:INHERIT. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 14:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a couple more sources that haven't been mentioned here and put them up on the talk page if anyone wants to take a look. squibix  (talk)  01:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - WP:CHANCE is the main reason why the article should not be deleted. The article is being flooded with complaints about its quality, many of due to the recency of the article and some, like "cite check", simply unfounded. Other arguments in favor of deletion include WP:IS and WP:1E, but it has been proved to be independent sources of notability for Brady in multiple events. Last, WP:ITSA does not apply since it is not an argument for deletion, but a counter-argument (WP:AADD). The arguments for deletion seem to be guided by overzealous deletion instead of reason and common sense. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of content, size or age, if a subject does not meet WP:N it will be deleted, so WP:CHANCE is for a subject that has the presumption of notability already, just a stub, ergo irrelevant for this discussion. — raeky  t  01:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "WP:CHANCE is for a subject that has the presumption of notability already", which is the case, as proven above. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Instead of discussing the matter in here, I'd be curious on how you'd improve the article, with the lack of independent coverage. I'm not being deletionist, but this article has no encyclopedic value. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 03:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it the current article that has no encyclopedic value, or the subject? The article can be improved. CodeCat (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You obviously have not read WP:CHANCE nor my comments. Please, read the discussion and the guidelines and contribute to the discussion by presenting new arguments or refuting the presented ones. Or simply abstain yourself from the discussion. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read every comment of yours, but the question is, have you read mine? The discussion is going on, but I see no improvement on the article, instead of discussing, prove that the article can be improved by improving it. Awhile back an article which I have contributed with received a prod then a afd, instead of discussing the matter I proved the subject's notability by collecting references which showed it was having enough media coverage and I started expanding the article, but to my disdain I stopped. The afd kept going on, but the substantial evidence for its notability was there, case closed, so far you have did nothing regarding this matter. Please if you want the maintenance of the article, refrain yourself from discussing, arguing here is not going to help. Always remember that voting is evil. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 13:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, it's not a requirement to improve an article if it's to pass an AfD. CodeCat (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sire, I'm intrigued, but you are misinterpreting what I'm writing, correlation does not imply causation, an article doesn't need to be improved to pass an AfD, there are hoaxes which are miraculously well written, but there are some cases when an editor improves an article and its reference, this editor proves/enhances the subject's notability factor, this is what I'm saying. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 21:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All your complaints have already been answered. Plese read WP:CHANCE and my comments again if you skimmed them or don't remember what I wrote. If you want to contribute to the discussion, present new arguments or refute the presented ones. Ad hominem does not help the discussion. And please stop making manichaeistic quotes. It is pretty easy to be evil by just following the rules, but very hard to be good by not following them. See the irony? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Topic meets WP:GNG and article issues are easily addressable through the plethora of reliable sources discussing thie person and his work.  I find it very difficult to ignore the BBC News links found through the Find sources up above or the  write-ups in such independent sources as Impact Magazine.  His works have him meeting WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER and his awards WP:ANYBIO.  Seems sensible to allow it to be kept and expanded and improved over time and through regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have striken out my vote, I have made a further research and I've also noticed that the subject passes one basic criteria as stated on WP:ANYBIO. The main problem on this article is the lack of third-party sources, but primaries sources can be used to support the enrichment of this article. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 05:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Question - Will that annoying template be there forever until User:Raeky miraculously changes his mind? I think he is the only one still voting for deletion. It has been a whole week already. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2013 (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.