Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Arthur


 * 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 no consensus. There was some off-wiki canvassing of opinions going on, but even discounting (not disregarding) those opinions the consensus is mixed. The biggest issue seems to be one of sourcing and puffery. It looks like some inroads have already been made on it, but there is no prejudice against renominating this article in 3-6 months if there are still RS/PUFF/GNG issues. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Isaac Arthur

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of notability, lack of reliable independent sources, WP:SPIP.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  13:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Hello. This is not WP:SPIP, I am not a personal benefactor to Isaac Arthur. I believe a science communicator with the capacity to reach out to 250,000 people meets the WP:N guidelines. External links section may however be appropriate for removal, I do not believe it adds anything to the article. Tar-Elessar (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, also contains puffery, and lacking independent references that prove any significance. Since you can purchase youtube subscriber numbers, the count alone prove nothing much. But if someone else actually wrote about the YouTube channel, that might prove something. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed on the terms of more reliable secondary sources. In the mean time, instead of deletion, I would propose adding BLP sources to the article (though perhaps not refimprove as primary sources are already cited). If you have identified puffery in the article could you remove it or enumerate on the article's talk page?  I think this article has a good chance of becoming one of good quality, though admittedly I may have jumped the gun in publishing it too soon (instead of leaving it as a draft and giving it a few rounds of revision). Thank you for spending the time to look it over. Tar-Elessar (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The main issue here is that the subject is not notable according to the requirements of WP articles.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  11:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi there. Added a few references to the article and just wanted to let you know. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 18:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, I'm not sure how much of a say I have since as a graphene researcher, I do occasionally advise Isaac on nanomaterials-related topics, but in response to the comments above: the channel does not purchase subscribers (I'm pretty sure Isaac couldn't afford to even if he wanted), I agree that the article needs to have bias removed and more sourcing added (there actually is quite a bit out there, I've seen several news articles feature him), and I agree that until these changes are met the article doesn't really meet the "notable persons" requirement. MMFA (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There are a few third party references already in the article to support notability and I found a couple others with a quick google search. Wikipedia is WP:notpaper. This article needs help, not to be deleted. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply Your editing history (last edit May 2015) strongly suggests you have been canvassed to comment here.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  14:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Isaac Arthur has been covered by various independent sources, establishing his notability. Among these include two articles (here, and here) written about him in the popular news outlet TechRepublic as well as an article written by local newspaper Star Beacon regarding the success of his YouTube channel. Rjgordon (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply Your editing history (handful of edits on a single subject, limited to October 2016) suggests that you have been canvassed to comment here. Neither of the TechRepublic pieces are substantively about the subject. Being interviewed in the media is not an indication of notability. Which leaves just the local newspaper as a source... that really doesn't cut it. We need significant coverage in reliable sources. We need the sources to be about the subject in question.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  14:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete There aren't any reliable sources about this person. I suggest this article be deleted as nothing much mentioned about this person can be verified Sharkslayer87 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note The two apparently canvassed !votes above were a little intriguing... here is the apparent source.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  14:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Per WP:INTERVIEW, "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." The subject's statements about themselves are primary sources, of course, but we can generally report those as long as they are not unduly self-serving, contested in reliable sources, etc. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply Also per WP:INTERVIEW, "The subject: Is the main subject of the interview the interviewee's own life or activities (e.g., a film critic interviews a dancer about her upcoming performance) or something else (e.g., a radio host interviews a physician about the advantages of flu shots)?" The subject of the two interviews is not the interviewee's (Isaac Arthur's) own life or activities.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  16:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply That's just one criterion among several for whether an interview is "useful"; it doesn't necessarily determine whether an interview counts toward notability. Compare WP:PROF, according to which academics can become notable by being frequently relied upon as subject-area experts. I don't really have a strong opinion about this article; it just struck me that the available sources were not being evaluated in the way that guidelines and precedent generally indicate. Of course, it's still possible that they don't add up to a case for notability, even so. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply Sure, but bear in mind that Isaac Arthur is not an academic so is not subject to WP:PROF.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  12:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but as a YouTube pop-science person, he meets some loose definition of "educator", so the "spirit" of a guideline like WP:PROF seems applicable. That's not a hard-and-fast argument, just a statement of where my sentiments lie. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I am Patreon supporter of Isaac Arthur but regular Wikipedia editor. I think he has the minimum amount of notability to allow a Wikipedia article.  He was also the Chairman of the Ashtabula County Board of Elections.Waters.Justin (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The available material is just barely enough to tip me over into considering him wiki-notable. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2018 (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.