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. Cirt (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hank green[edit]

Biographical article about a non notable blogger; a flurry of single purpose accounts kept recreating it so much that Hank Green was salted (check the deletion log!); however, this apparently has not stopped the attempting to promote him at this improperly capitalized alternative. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 04:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a recreation of repeatedly deleted material and salt to stop this coming back again and again. Reyk _YO! 07:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically this is the 3rd AfD for Hank Green, here are the first and second ones, both of which ended in delete, despite the flood of SPAs in the second one. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 08:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above research. Recreation of deleted content should not be tolerated. Luinfana (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:RPDA and salt. It's substantially the same as the old article, with no improvements and no change in the notability of the subject, and self-promotion to boot. Graymornings_(talk) 09:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment While I'm absolutely convinced that this particular article should be deleted, I am also convinced that a Hank Green article should get another chance. I've written a better sourced article over here. Please take a look at the sources of my draft before denominating him non notable. (Most notable sources on the subject: CBS2 News, Fox, NPR, The Young Turks, KDKA (CBS), Time, The Missoulian, Huffington Post,...) I've spent a lot of time waiting for more sources and rewriting the article. I'd hate to see its chances ruined by this badly sourced recreation of deleted content. JoinTheMadVender (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's some nice work. I'm still not entirely convinced- the sources are numerous but a little flimsy, and the whole thing seems puffy- but I'd be willing to give your version more time. I still say "delete and salt" for now because of the rubbish that keeps popping up. But when your version is ready to go live you can request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard to get it unsalted. Reyk _YO! 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. It's killing me that I'm discussing a deletion review for a subject on which I have been involved for the last half year, because somebody posted an article that's worse than what I had 6 months ago. I agree that it's not quite ready to go up yet, but I had to make a comment here. Hank Green is at least arguably-notable, based on the sources I provided. Until he's undeniably notable, I would actually like to see both pages (1,2) redirected to the Brotherhood 2.0 section on John Green's page. Does anyone have a problem with that solution? JoinTheMadVender (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral about the new article. Whenever I can't find a real good reason not to have it I usually support having it around. (Although one thing should be fixed. I looked at the most watched YouTube videos for another AFD and the statement: "His most succesful song is Accio Deathly Hallows[2], a song about the last Harry Potter book. The video got featured on YouTube and, with over a million views, still remains their most viewed video." appears to be untrue. It should either be cited directly, altered or removed. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for pointing that out. It's a line that came from an earlier version, the video was the most viewed vlogbrothers' video at the time. (But I might have badly phrased it because the way you explained it, it seems you thought it meant the most viewed video on Youtube. I didn't notice it could be interpreted that way.) I've corrected it now. JoinTheMadVender (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an attempt to circumvent previous AfD for Hank Green. I don't see any reason to invalidate the outcome of previous AfD's. This guy appears to be a real self-promoter and I see nothing encyclopedic about inclusion (a decision that has been reached several times already |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that there has been some promotion going on, there is nothing that points to self-promotion. (Not since after the first Afd anyway) JoinTheMadVender (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection Since Brotherhood 2.0 is notable enough to get a section on John Green's page (how very little that is), I suggest redirecting both Hank Green pages to there. (Brotherhood 2.0 already redirects there, I see no reason why Hank Green shouldn't) JoinTheMadVender (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection or Delete and Salt I originally created this page on October 14th with no intention of it being its own article, and only as a redirect to John Green. The fact that I created Hank green when there was already a page for Hank Green that had been deleted twice was in NO way an intentional circumvention of the deletion of the original, but just a stupid mistake (although I blame no one for thinking that it had been intentional; whenever something has a diehard fanbase, irrational editing is short to follow). I think that they should both redirect to John Green, they being Hank Green and Hank green. Seeing as this was all the result of a stupid capitalization mistake, deletion would also make sense too. danis1911 (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2008 (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.