Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marques Brownlee (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 12:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Marques Brownlee
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am the admin who closed the first AfD, as Keep. It was brought to my attention that I may have not closed this correctly. After reviewing the discussion, I am not convinced that I did. So, I am relisting this as an administrative action for further review. I offer no opinion on the desired outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously. The discussion should have been closed as no consensus, which defaults to keeping it anyway. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:WEBCRIT. Any arguments about YouTube channel views, Google hits, or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS cannot answer this failure of notability. Also, WP:NOTAVOTE. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I was surprised it was closed the first time, because Wikipedia is not about voting. So if 20 people say Keep and they have a poor rationale, and 2 people say delete per wikipedia rules, we go with the 2. And this issue of consensus needs to be cleared up. The remarks about he has a big following have nothing at all to do with Wikipedia criteria. I have no problem with his entry I have a problem with the total reliance on YouTube ref, which have next to zero weight in establishing Notability. Subject fails WP:GNG and this is not an opinion it is a fact. At best the article should be a stub and the excessive YouTube ref be removed.--Inayity (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was spelled out clearly at the reliable sources notice board, and elsewhere that YouTube video blogs can be reliable sources. I think we use them here judiciously and in the spirit of reliable sources and avoiding original research. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you have a WP:LISTEN issue, but this is about WP:GNG where Notability first needs to be established. YouTube ref for Prince (musician) might be valid, but only after we establish is the person notable per Wiki standards. I do not know how much clearer that can be. And I will not repeat it again.--Inayity (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And I will sigh as i repeat to you yet again, I think notability as likely the world's best technology reviewer, and other sources, have met GNG. That he has nearly a million subscribers, as well, also speaks to that. Bit feel free to fill up yet another page with your insistence that the floodgates will fly open and anyone with a YouTube account will now be allowed to have an article, that sky is falling hysteria just hasn't swayed anyone. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, nice amount of secondary source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – Notable subject and covered by reliable secondary sources. (The >1,000,000 subscriptions not taken into account.) Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Cirt and User:Epicgenius Would you be so kind to point out these 2nd sources which justify a Wikipedia page? I see one interview with a Motorola CEO Dennis Woodside.--Inayity (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per my reasons in the previous AfD. --RaviC (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep All the reasons from the last RfD. Renominating a few weeks after a clear keep is not right. There should be a rule against it or something. Darx9url (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "There should be a rule against it or something" Now is a good time to tell you that competence is required. If you haven't oriented yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you should probably remain silent in the Wikipedia namespace.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 05:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is needlessly uncivil. Encouraging people to essentially shut up, lest they make a mistake is caustic to a consensus-building atmosphere. Darx9url, you might look at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. FWIW, I completely agree that this 2nd AfD after 7 days from the last one, is misusing the process. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment, another article just posted, Howe Student's First Million: Tech Reviewer's YouTube Following Reaches Major Milestone
 * Good add it to the article.--Inayity (talk) 19:38, 16 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.