Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Browning (YouTuber)


 * 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 keep. After apportioning appropriate weight to the relative strength of each argument, it is apparent that there is a clear consensus that the article meets the guidelines on notability and hence that it should be kept. I will also take this opportunity to note that the conduct of a number of editors in this discussion appears to fall short of Wikipedia’s policies on casting aspersions and assuming good faith, so this may be a timely reminder to review and understand those policies, and to make the discussion about notability and policies, not the motivations of others. Now, let us all go forth and build an encyclopedia. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Jim Browning (YouTuber)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. While he has been featured in a BBC television episode, this does not confer automatic notability per WP:ONEEVENT. Unfortunately, in 2020, being a YouTube creator with one million subscribers does not make the creator especially notable. KidAd (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Can't say I agree with you. Over 24 videos with 1M+ viewcounts, over half of those with 2M+, and peaking at 8M+ views. Separate articles on him by BBC, CBS, The Times, and The AV Club. Meets point 3: "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". 70.79.244.121 (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Social media numbers show popularity, but not notability, which is not the same thing. Naleksuh (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: There are at least some news articles covering Jim prior to the Amit Chauhan affair, namely this Engadget article, this one from CBS News, another BBC item, this one from Boing Boing, and this one from A.V. Club. I think I made the mistake of over-emphasizing the BBC coverage when there's plenty more to it than just the ONEEVENT issue you brought up. Whether the sources I linked to is enough to establish notability or not is all entirely up to your consensus. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep In comparison to articles such as Kitboga (streamer) and such, Jim Browning can easily be perceived as more notable due to around the same coverage and of course the BBC documentary. Disclosure of conflict of interest, that I am semi-involved in scam-baiting community myself, but is my personal encylopedic opinion (also note that social media numbers are popularity, not notability). Naleksuh (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I feel that subscribers shouldn't be the only basis of merit. Yes he has over a Million, which even YouTube itself classifies as a large milestone, but that isn't what he is about. Jim Browning represents the potential good in this world, he is a symbol that we can fight scammers and that with enough pressure, law enforcement and corporations around the world will listen to the people and help stop these scams. Jim has earned his status as Notable with his efforts. The BBC along with hundreds of other media outlets worldwide released articles on his actions, including new podcasts coming out soon. There are plenty who have articles on Wikipedia or deserve it much less than the great Jim Browning and anyone who stumbles upon his article is hopefully another who can be made aware of what is happening and be one less person at risk of being scammed.SpitefulBatman (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC) — SpitefulBatman (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep, first of all, the keep votes above do nothing but ramble on in the vein of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT and make no claim to notability, but I do think this guy passes GNG. He has received significant coverage in numerous sources, such as: YouTuber Breaks The Law To Protect People From Scammers, Robocall revenge: Meet the techies turning the tables on scammers, and Tech scammers try to rip off hacker, get their CCTV cameras and computers hacked in response, in addition to the sources brought up by Blake Gripling which easily assuage any BLP1E problems. These sources are enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. While a lot of the more recent coverage relates to the BBC Panorama program of Mar 2020 (and that is not insignificant spanning UK national outlets like the BBC, Belfast Telegraph, The Times, etc), there are also examples of broad coverage before then (eg: in the US in Jun 2019 on CBS and CBS affiliates, etc). In the majority of coverage, either the subject is the focus of the title or the focus of the piece. As such, I'm not sure that BLP1E or "passing mentions" can be taken to apply. Mine is a "keep" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This was likely flagged for deletion by the scammers Jim Browning tries to take down. No violation or reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornunderamerrystar (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: The user you're referring to is from California and has been doing contributions for the past few years. Judging from his userspace I doubt he has any, if at all, connections to the scammers Jim has been butting heads with. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I can confirm that I am neither Indian nor a phone scammer. KidAd (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What prompted you to target this specific article? 137.82.233.57 (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have the same query. Stopped editing Wiki for almost ten years. Have to come in today just to ask, what is so wrong with this article that prompted you to specifically nominate a deletion flag? Please refer to Notability, reliable sources are there, with 11 references from various media, i don't see any point for article deletion. Cocoma (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Cocoma and many other editors who have defaced this discussion with baseless accusations, I will remind you that Casting aspersions is a violation of policy. KidAd was well within his rights to nominate this article for deletion, and I can personally attest I have far more confidence in his editing acumen and good intentions than that of the people throwing around accusations. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To unregistered users, IPs, and individuals who have been away from Wikipedia for a significant amount of time: please remember to WP:AGF. If you consider this deletion discussion to be a personal attack on a youtube person you like, then I'm sorry you feel that way. I would suggest that individuals cease casting WP:ASPERSIONS and continue discussing the notability of the page's subject with neutrality and civility. KidAd (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * KidAd, you are getting defensive here and not answering a legitimate query on the ground for article deletion. The initial reason provided "in 2020, being a YouTube creator with one million subscribers does not make the creator especially notable" is not in line with Neutral point of view (Read Words to watch, which shows your inference of the lack of credibility because of the assumption you made). This is what prompted several users here asking on the rationale. Cocoma (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You were asked a valid question, what prompted it. People want to understand your point of view. SpitefulBatman (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The references in the article show a number of articles about him and his hacking of call centres. I dont see any reason the article should be deleted UnseenSteve (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Pretty sure KidAd is new to White hack industry. This guy is notable enough in the community, and deserve the strong keep. Cocoma (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in agreement with the coverage cited as fulfilling the GNG Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the reasons above. Some of the coverage is passing or short descriptions of videos but much of it, e.g. the Belfast Telegraph article, are more significant and establish notability. Procyonidae (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Keep significant coverage from BBC and CBS (one year before). Trout for the nom and anyone not assuming good faith. An important proverb; always open Pandora's box with extreme care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PainProf (talk • contribs) 23:14, 4 July 2020 (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.