Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vlad and Nikita

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. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad and Nikita[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article on a children's Youtube channel has lingered in the NPP queue for a long time, I think because it is a borderline case. The article has been tagged as undisclosed paid. It is a popular Youtube channel, with over 30 million subscribers. The non-social media/database/press release sources in the article are this from Business Insider and this from Thrillist. The coverage in these sources is exceptionally brief - a few sentences in a listicle about "the x most popular Youtube channels". I am not convinced that this satisfies WP:SIGCOV.

There is quite a bit of coverage on Google News, but excluding blogs and press releases, it is all of the same type, lightweight listicles that devote no more than two or three sentences to the subject: [1][2][3][4]. The coverage on this Russian site is more in-depth, but I'm not sure about the reliability of the source; running the site's front page through Google Translate, I get the impression that it's a trashy celeb gossip site that shouldn't be used in BLPs. This from Paper Magazine is the best source I could find and it is still quite insubstantial - half of the 250 word article is about a different Youtube channel.

The question is, is a high subscriber count and some mentions in listicles enough to justify a (possibly paid) BLP on two minors? I am not sure, so I am nominating it here to get consensus. Spicy (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I would consider it pretty likely that 36.7 Million subscribers and 14.3 Billion views would cause them to pass WP:ENTERTAINER#2, “Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following”. Regardless of that, I think they pass WP:GNG. The article in Papermag provides significant coverage, and there is also this:[5] which I think also provides significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The second article is a press release (see here, plus the fact that it has no author). Spicy (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Not sure what makes you think it's paid and don't know what I should (should I?) answer on that. But IMHO all channels in this list definitely pass WP:ENTERTAINER#2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-subscribed_YouTube_channels. And in a moment of creation this was the most popular channel without an article. MasterMao (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trying to bludgeon the discussion, but I think it might be helpful to expand on my rationale. Having 36 million subscribers satisfies WP:NENT C2, but unlike some other criteria such as NACADEMIC, NENT does not supersede GNG. It is merely an indication that the topic may meet GNG. Most Youtube channels with that number of subscribers probably do meet GNG, but this is a unusual case because the channel publishes banal clickbait videos for preschoolers, and that isn't a topic that is likely to attract serious critical attention or media interest, unlike say, Pewdiepie or Logan Paul, where there are numerous things to say about them. We can see that all reliable sources have to say about this topic is "it's a Youtube channel about two brothers, and they have a lot of followers", which is not enough to sustain an encyclopedic article, IMO. Spicy (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. It has some WP:SIGCOV, it's even talked about in this website. Therefore, the article is good enough to pass WP:ENT and WP:GNG. My vote stands. So, don't bother arguing. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently, aside from commercial/brand/corporate channels, children/family channels have the most subscribers right now on YouTube. They are enormous and receive hundreds of millions views! Unfortunately, channels that focus on children's play and nursery rhymes are not the subject of newspaper and media coverage. I was looking for coverage of them here and it seems like only a couple have Wikipedia articles. It is unlikely that there will be in depth interviews with toddlers or their parents so we might be limited to incidental coverage. But I think they are still newsworthy and I'm searching to see if any organization has tried to analyze this phenomenon. These families, which are spread out all over the world, are becoming multi-millionaires overnight and I hope to find some media coverage of this all. It's a recent phenomena. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As others have stated they have a large enough fanbase to pass the subject specific guideline for entertainers. Dream Focus 21:58, 10 June 2020 (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.