Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Green

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 Delete — Caknuck 03:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Green

Contested {{prod}}. Hank Green and his brother John Green, a notable young adult author, have a video blog called Brotherhood 2.0 (that was featured on YouTube this week) and Hank has a blog called Ecogeek. As you can see, both have been deleted. This article is not a speedy candidate, but I do not believe it passes WP:V or WP:NOR. Most of the information is sourced to Hank's own blogs. The other "sources" are a link showing that he was a contributor to some sort to a book published by a magazine, and an article about authors with blogs, that has a brief mention of the fact that John and Hank have a vlog. Other than the indisputable fact that the vlog exists, the rest is OR or vandalism, and it's pretty hard to sort out which is which. JayHenry 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, and seems lacking in sources unrelated to the subject. Titanium Dragon 00:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete under A7 - no sources, non-notable, and most of it's vanity. Seems someone tried to do this in May, but an editor removed the SD tag. We'll see what happens this time. Sidatio 00:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD A7, not notable and no sources. Oyster guitarist 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not speedy It has a source, and claims its notable. Whether it is--that's another question. We can decide that here, so I removed the speedy so a case can be made. DGG (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now we know what happens. ;-)

I'm going to go with on the fence, leaning toward the green grass of deletion. On the one hand, we have his contributions to mental_floss. On the other hand, those seem to be his only notable contributions. As far as the book goes - it's a compilation of past mental_floss content from what I can tell, so it seems to count only towards his contributions to that magazine. To me, it looks kind of like a guy who's notably famous for just one thing. Sidatio 03:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not a speedy candidate. But please note that I can't determine if it's accurate that he's a contributing editor for mental_floss. He appears to have written for them three times. That's the problem I have with all the sources. Vague references that don't actually support their claims, and the rest just original research. --JayHenry 04:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is not notable per WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 21:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete he IS notable per WP:BIO. Under "Entertainers":
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
BenL 05:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Prove it with reliable sources. That's the main problem facing this article. Sidatio 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that enough blog posts linking to his main (web) accomplishments (mainly Brotherhood 2.0 and ecogeek.org) qualify him as having a "large fan base" as do running a forum for fans with over 1850 registered users. In addition Brotherhood 2.0 holds 1st place for Best Video Blogger in the Blogger Choice Awards (http://www.bloggerschoiceawards.com/categories/31). I agree that there should be more sources cited. BenL 10:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Brotherhood 2.0's AfD notwithstanding, blog posts don't equal notability. Blogs aren't a reliable source per Wikipedia's verification guideline. Sidatio 11:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited automatically from a famous brother. Their Brotherhood 2.0 vlog is also up for deletion. Realkyhick 19:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See related deletion listing here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brotherhood 2.0 --JayHenry 19:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.