Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marques Brownlee


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Marques Brownlee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No apparent notability. Most of the sources are self-published interviews. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 08:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or Stub The person is not yet ready for a Wikipedia page. But also search MKBHD. I think in the future when better ref become available. In the interim I do not know if it is possible to reduce the article to a stub. (just a suggestion). because most of the content is of no notable interest. My other issue is quality control, how many fans do you need on YouTube to get a Wikipedia page. I would hope the criteria is not based on YouTube popularity.--Inayity (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, article is new and stubby, but the subject has already received notoriety, even from his competition, in a crowded field. The interviews published about him are still independent of Brownlee, and I feel our use of them is acceptable, confirming non-surprising basic bio information from Brownlee's own mouth, as to be utterly uncontroversial. I see nothing reported as being false or unattributed. Let the article naturally grow and see if there aren't some new more traditional media sources to complement all the e-reporting. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * None of this is reason to keep an article, but more reasons to remove it and re-add it when RS is available. I have suggested removing all that material which is not notable and leaving it as a stub. But those YouTube ref gots to go. And after all this time I do not think Sportsfan is getting a point. If it is ONLY coming from his mouth why is it notable to be on Wikipedia. Why would I need to know this info about him? Who is he? Is he Obama? Is AllAfrica talking about him? So "non-surprising" info or true or false has absolutely nothing to do with it, if WP:PEOPLE fails. If it is not reported by independent sources then why do we need an article about it? And over and over again I am repeating this message but you seem not to be understanding the issue.--Inayity (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the the video sources are fine for how they are used. If Brownlee says what his majors and minors are, when asked, that is exactly the kind of information a good article should have. It's of value enough for an interviewer to ask, and we have zero reason to believe anything he's said is not true. If Brownless is asked, and answers, why hid did something or how he does it, then I have no reason not to believe him. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't about the non-controversial facts being essentially unreferenced. The issue is that the subject is not notable. I agree that the self-published sources are problematic but I've nominated this because of the notability.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's over the borderline, being referred to as the the best technology reviewer on the planet right now by an authority in the field certainly sounds notable. Additionally, he does get nods and press coverage all over the place but the nature of his work is that by far the majority of it is not in traditional media formats. The article all seems to be true and we do accept a BLPs word for information about themselves. Any exceptional claims are sourced. I'll keep looking for sources. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately these are not Wikipedia's concerns. When you click that notability check, nothing serious comes up. This is why I said remove all the content and reduce the page to a stub, with only basic info. I really have no idea why we need to know where he lives or where he went to school or what he is studying. It is almost like using Wikipedia like Facebook, and it is not.--Inayity (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You might want to read other biographies, where someone lives, and what they studied in college is fundamental to the story of their life. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would but then I can go to his website, why is he on Wikipedia is what people are asking. I personally know he does EXCELLENT reviews, the best (if you ask me). BUT, I cannot base anything here on my personal pref. I tried to avoid this happening.He has a very large fanbase on YOuTube and I think at best he deserves a stub articel.--Inayity (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Verifiability is not the same issue as notability, and this article fails WP:GNG and other relevant notability guidelines, as no significant coverage has been shown in any reliable sources. That nothing is "false or unattributed" does not preclude the need for notability to be established and is irrelevant to that issue.  - Aoidh (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: He is indeed one of the most popular technology journalists - and has been recognised as such by more mainstream technology websites, such as PocketNow and by Motorola's CEO, Dennis Woodside. Thus, I feel he is notable enough to be included here. --RaviC (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Which sources back those claims up? Passing mentions, blogs, and random podcasts do not create sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG; "popularity" doesn't matter, reliable sources do. - Aoidh (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is anyone prepared to keep the article as a stub as a compromise? --Inayity (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's the best solution here. --RaviC (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree, pending more conversation. Inayity has wanted to remove such benign information such as his majors of studies in school. This is not only basic biographical information, but is true and sourced. Likewise is everything else in the article which is already pretty stubby. Inayity has also argued that no video blog sources could be used, and when that was disputed at the reliable sources admin board, tried to set a quota on how many could be used. No one is disputing that more sources would be ideal but this is not a large article extolling how everyone should sign-up for his channel. Instead we are reporting basic true facts and just about everything is sourced, even if some of those sources are primary, which is not ideal, but also not disallowed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can pick out lots of people and write a well-referenced and balanced biographic article about them. The issue is, they're not notable.  When Brownlee's reviews are discussed in The New York Times, I'll be willing to concede.  Till then, Wikipedia doesn't need another article about a YouTuber.
 * To end this debate I'll suffer the "stub compromise" but ultimately the sourcing doesn't make out subject's notability. Furthermore, how would we enforce any compromise?  If we drop the AfD, it's essentially a "keep".  After that we could delete content out of the article but how much?  We have to watchlist the article to stop anyone from re-adding old info?  I doubt parties in the future would respect an informal compromise.  Delete is the simplest way to go.  Any interested party can resubmit the article to WP:AFC for readmission.   Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing that I am confused about and have been confused about is the argument for delete is strong-Yet Sportsfan seems to rather the alternative DELETION. As much as I am a fan of MKHB I cannot find a counter argument for the charge of not-notable. The stubbing of the article is not even by the books, it is a negotiation. The man is NOt notable per Wikipedia. Take what you can get or lose the page. And I agree with Chris not because I personally like it, but because it is the accurate rationale.--Inayity (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, making it a stub would be a solution if the subject was notable but the sourcing was an issue, this isn't the case. The subject just flat out isn't notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, even so much as creating a stub isn't an option. There's no need to resumbit it to AfD since the "keep" arguments are not based on any Wikipedia policies ("popularity" and "accuracy" and not valid arguments for keeping an article when basic notability is not met), and consensus is based on policy-based arguments, not a vote. - Aoidh (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then it must be deleted, if an informal agreement cannot be reached.--Inayity (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to feel you own the article or something. It doesn't exist or not by your rules alone. He's plenty notable and the article is perfectly acceptable as is. This fear-mongering that every blogger will suddenly become worthy of an article is false. Most will not, some will. Brownlee has risen above the rest as an oft-quoted and respected industry expert. This is a very basic bio, not a fluffy promotional piece. i think it edges over GNG and obviously eyes are on it to ensure it doesn't get out of control. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me start by correcting your tone of wild and grasping presumption. Stick to discussing the issues this space was designed for and leave analytically opinions of my contributions out of Wikipedia. What are you on about "my rules" You have failed in totality to demonstrate your argument, all you are doing is appealing to some ridiculous notion of "popularity" it has been expressed by numerous editors, Popularity on YouTube or Facebook are not criteria for wikipedia pages. I will end addressing this line of argument as it has been exhaustively addressed. WP:GNGNow the page is up for deletion.--Inayity (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It has been exhausting dealing with your continued arguments. You insist, filling up several pages, that a video blog could not be used as a source, when that was shut down you tried to cap how many could be used, etc. I think GNG has been met and stated so clearly, I think we can write a good basic article about the subject without engaging in original research. That doesn't make this the best sourced article but independent sources do support what we have here. We will simply have to agree to disagree if it is enough for now. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You and who else think this? maybe I need to use another language. WP:INDY. So we cannot agree to disagree if you have not shown any RS to agree or disagree about. --Inayity (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * INDY is a perfect example:

"Any article on a topic is required to cite a reliable source independent of the topic itself, to warrant that an article on the topic can be written from a neutral point of view and not contain original research."
 * Thank you for making that point. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I may be on a different country version of Wikipedia to you, so I must apologies if I am reading the following: An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective.Now YouTube videos with 11 likes is your version of Independent ref which makes MKHDB Notable? Am I missing something south of the equator?. --Inayity (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically any source that talks about a subject at all could be considered having a vested interest. They are writing about well known subjects in hopes of attracting and retaining readers/visitors. Does that make New York Times automatically having a vested interest when it covers Barack Obama, well sure they do but that is weighed as well with what they are reporting and how. In Brownlee's case we likely have no hard-hitting news pieces because frankly he's young and uncontroversial. So the only news about him is his bio and work. And this is reflected in the article with due weight. As new articles are written that are considered more reliable and more independent, than they can replace the ones we have that aren't as strong. It's a new article that is very short, that will change as more sources report on him, and many of them will cover the exact same ground that we have here, as the rest of the reporting tends to then digress into specific product reviews - what's the latest smart phone news, etc. I feel the article is fine as is and it will improve. This guy is very young and he is going to school and doing tech reviews. I'm not sure what else you expect should be in the article that we don't already have, and likely will need for the next few months at least. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So basically your argument is a plea to give a brother a chance? I asked a question and never got a reply. How many fans do you think one should have before we start giving out Wikipedia pages? --Inayity (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a crass misinterpretation of my views, and i think you know that. As far setting a minimum number of likes to declare a YouTube channel, or any online entity gets a Wikipedia page? Sorry, I cannot support your proposal, those numbers are only an indication of true influence and support. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well i hope you dont support it b/c it was only stated to illustrate a point. your argument does seem to have in overtones of "he is young and going to do great things in the future, and one famous person recognizes this (pocketnow)". So why don't we delete the page until that time (this is my understanding of what Chris was saying. B/c my first issue when all of this started is has Wikipedia become like MySpace where we get info like he likes out door sports and lives at this address in New York: why do we need to know this? --Inayity (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be helpful to read other biographies? Writers include mundane things like what style of clothes people wear, do they have pets, children, hobbies, what did they study in school, etc. to paint a picture of who the person is so we can relate to them. We aren't including Brownlee's favorite band, lucky number, or what soap he uses, just some basic mundane details that any biography would include. And where did that information come from? Reliable sources who reported on those details, or asked him point blank - what are you studying in school? Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes but the threshold of inclusion is what? Other Bio of you mean people like Prince(musician) or Malcolm X? But Wikipedia does not care what he is studying in school. We are not here to report on this unless it is notable. So on Spike Lee it might be relevant. But Marques out door activities with a YouTube video is too much.--Inayity (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The view of YouTube as a four-letter word or slur is old news. It just isn't, many video blogs are perfectly acceptable and most major news organizations have their own channels. I think our use of video blogs here i judicious and acceptable. I think the information cited to these sources is largely benign and exactly what a biographical article would include if it were written reasonably well. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Being able to arite an accurate article without engaging in original research is not the same as meeting WP:GNG, you can have an accurate article that is simply not notable, and that's what we have here. - Aoidh (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep the independent sources clearly indicate the article subject is notable. DIZwikwiki (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC) 02:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC) — DIZwikwiki (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What independent sources? We have just all agreed we cannot find much.--Inayity (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 18:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, if it was around a few 100,000 I would had regarded to be promotional, but seems notable already. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A few 100,000 what? Views? Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources (which this article lacks), not YouTube hits. - Aoidh (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mentioned youtube hits at all. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then what is the "around a few 100,000" you're referring to? Notability isn't based on numbers. - Aoidh (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 100,000+ google hits. Although there are more than 1,140,000 already, all of them refers to this person. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ,, related popularity. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Like YouTube views, Google hits don't mean anything at all, because notability is about the quality of the sources, not the number of them. If there are only two reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, that's infinitely more important than 10,000,000 Google hits when determining notability. Unfortunately, this article doesn't even appear to have one. The two links you provided above do not satisfy this, one being a blog and the other, even if a reliable source, lacks any significant coverage of the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think one reason for this rule is if it was not about quality then we would be creating a lot of wikipedia pages for anyone who has gained popularity. I think he has about 2 notable ref, or one.--Inayity (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are certainly some reliable sources, and certainly some sources that have significant coverage, but there doesn't appear to be any that are both reliable sources and have significant coverage of the subject. The sources are all either one or the other, which fails WP:GNG utterly. - Aoidh (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Almost 1'000'000 subscribers on YouTube, 80% of sources are reliable and the article does seem to be in proportionate shape. TwinTurbo (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a note to those not aware of what is happening here, this is NOT a vote, or about how many subscribers he has. This is a discussion about compliance with Wikipedia, Not YouTube--Inayity (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And this is also not a soapbox for you to repeat the same arguments that have already been refuted at the reliable sources noticeboard. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do users use terminologies they have a poor understanding of like WP:SOAP? As opposed to throw these policies around sit down and understand what the rules say.--Inayity (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No that's a pretty fair argument, whatever your referring to at WP:RSN doesn't apply since none of the sources show notability per WP:GNG. Notability is not determined by vote, by number of subscribers, he's not wrong about that, that's pretty well established on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep He is mentioned in independent sources, showing that he is notable enough for coverage. Darx9url (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability requires significant coverage, not passing mentions. The subject does not meet any Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. - Aoidh (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2014 (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.