Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brotherhood 2.0


 * 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 straight-out delete.  Daniel →♦  10:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Brotherhood 2.0
Seems to be a vanity project by two brothers, one of whom is an award-winning author (John Green). A related deletion listing (with which I am not connected) is for the article about the other brother:
 * See Articles for deletion/Hank Green

This project was featured on YouTube, for what it's worth, but doesn't seem to have any other merit. I believe it's covered briefly in the John Green article. Perhaps a smerge mentioning that Youtube listed the site might be merited. --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I nominated Hank Green for deletion. In theory, I'd be more comfortable with a page about the project than the person.  But, as it stands, what we have here is a complete violation of No Original Research.  The only independent source is the Publisher's Weekly article, which is about authors blogging in general, with John Green as an example, and basically all it mentions about B2.0 -- in the second to last paragraph no less -- is that the video blog exists. --JayHenry 19:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Full disclosure: I was involved in a dispute with the original author, who became rather upset that I tagged his very thorough article with a speedy delete, which seemed appropriate given the lack of notability and the fact it had been speedied three previous times since April or so. The dispute was handled by informal mediation. I actually removed a prod for this article, mainly to make way for a full AfD. Author claims he is just a fan of the vlog and has no direct connection. I have nothing to prove otherwise, but the article does seem to be very detailed. I still maintain that the subject simply does not meet notability standards. Reliable sources are very sparse, as most Google hits seem to be posts on other blogs and forums of the "hey, check this out" variety. I think a section in the John Green article would be more appropriate. As I have said before, the best-written article in the world can't overcome a subject's inherent lack of notability. Realkyhick 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A remarkably stupid project, known only on YouTube--fortunately, one of the two brothers is a notable author with an article, so the rest of the material can be appropriately included there, as tony suggests. DGG (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Having read the article, my only thought was "How nice for them!". This information belongs in a family annual letter, not in an encyclopedia article. Even if the participants were both notable, about 2 sentences would cover it all, and inside their own articles. Bielle 23:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to John Green (author) I'm a fan of their's, but I don't think this project is that notable enough for its own article yet (even with "Accio Deathly Hallows" :)). However, I think it's probably notable enough to include in the article for John Green and when (I should probably say 'if') it attains notoriety, it should get its own article.  So, after the merge, delete with prejudice to recreation faaaaaar down the road. CaveatLectorTalk 02:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't merge and delete. If we merge we should maintain the history and redirect for license purposes. --Tony Sidaway 02:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I love this project, but it's not for the encyclopedia. Major violation of the wiki-rules. Link from John Green's page should be sufficient. 1:35, Aug 8, 2007 (EST)


 * 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.