Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigahiga videography


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Nigahiga videography

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I'm not sure whether we have ever decided whether a videography of a YouTube personality, even one who seems to pass the notability standard, is itself a suitable separate article. The utterly trivial nature of most of the contents leads me to doubt it.. I suppose this is not the place to decide if it is even suitable content, but I doubt that also.  DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I believe Ryan Higa the person, as well as his body of work, are each independently notable. As the second-most subscribed person on YouTube with various media mentions he certainly seems notable to me. His page receives around 1500-2000 hits per day, placing him in the top 7000 articles by hits.
 * I will concede that reliable sources generally avoiding discussing his work at length. However, per WP:INHERIT, "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an 'inherited notability' per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums."
 * I see this as a practical concern related to formatting. On a practical level, such a lengthy videography took up an inordinate amount of space on his article. While I personally find most Web videos trivial, I also believe in describing a body of work that has garnered popular culture appeal. This is simply a way of making that content more accessible to those who want it, and keeping it out of the way for people looking for general information about the person. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument is made of WP:BIG, WP:POPULARPAGE, bordering WP:PRETTY and your original research. It fails WP:NOTABILITY, so whether WP:INHERIT applies or not is a moot point. You say he's certainly notable, but then you go on to say the article is too small for this content. Short biographies suggests lack of notability, not proof.
 * I've partially solved the 'too big' problem by deleting all the unsourced videos on the list.--Otterathome (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per CaseyPenk.  Zappa  O  Mati   04:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: as per CaseyPenk. Mikepellerin (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Ryan Higa is notable, but none of this content is covered by any indepedant sources, so fails WP:NOTABILITY. All arguments provided above are terrible, which I have replied to, minus the two votes.--Otterathome (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, I'm not sure this list is even notable for a section on the article, Nigahiga makes a wide range of random videos, there is no consistent topic, or sequence of events, like a TV or web series. This list adds nothing to the bio. 117Avenue (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The videography is already in the parent article. The content there, with videography, is not so large as to require an article split. Whether that material can continue there is an editorial decision we need not make here (as DGG duly notes.)  Unlikely search term, so I don't see the need for a redirect. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Like others, I have my doubts whether it is even suitable in the main article. It certainly doesn't merit its own article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per A10. There's absolutely nothing here that isn't in the Nigahiga article already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleddog116 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the list was removed from the main article when it was created. 117Avenue (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete borderline suitability for inclusion in the main article, not suitable at all for a stand-alone article. If the majority of the videos had their own article along with suitable references, it might be different - but as it is, this should be deleted.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:26, 4 July 2012 (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.