Deletion of Brady Haran

Comment: WP:CHANCE is the main reason why the article should not be deleted. The article is being flooded with complaints about |its quality, many of due to the recency of the article and some, like "cite check", simply unfounded. Other arguments in favor of deletion include  and , but it has been proved to be independent sources of notability for Brady in multiple events. Last,  does not apply since it is not an argument ''for'' deletion, but a counter-argument (). The arguments for deletion seem to be guided by |overzealous deletion instead of reason and common sense
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UGLY||WP:IS||WP:1E||WP:ITSA||WP:AADD||WP:ZEAL)

Comment: Topic meets  and article issues are |easily addressable through the |plethora of reliable sources discussing thie person and his work.  I find it very difficult to ignore the ''BBC News'' links found through the ''Find sources'' up above or the  write-ups in such independent sources as http://www.impactnottingham.com/2012/02/impact-speaks-to-brady-haran/ ''Impact Magazine''.  His works have him meeting  and  and his awards .  Seems sensible to allow it to be kept and expanded and improved over time and through regular editing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IMPROVE||WP:NRVE||WP:CREATIVE||WP:ENTERTAINER||WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: I have ''striken'' out my vote, I have made a further research and I've also noticed that the subject passes one basic criteria as stated on . The main problem on this article is the lack of third-party sources, but primaries sources can be used to support the enrichment of this article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO)