Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Higa and Sean Fujiyoshi


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Higa and Sean Fujiyoshi

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Same reasons as last time. ÷seresin 05:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I count 7 main stream news sources, which should be more than enough to establish notability as follows: Additionally, LA Weekly reviewed their film. There are also countless semi-reliable source reviews of their work that aren't part of the mainstream press. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Being the second most subscribed YouTube channel is pretty darn notable, as even several of the deletes agreed last time. This time around there is plenty of sources available to back this up.
 * Honolulu Advertiser
 * Chicago Daily Herald
 * KITV
 * KGMB
 * asiaone (half them, half someone else)
 * Honolulu Star-Bulletin (fairly trivial)
 * Epoca (the subject of the article is things most discussed on the Internet; Ryan & Sean come in at number 3)


 * Keep- Impressive list of sources. Surely a keeper.--Roaring Siren (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Being the second person to have more than one million suscribers on YouTube is pretty notable. Clem (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability established through the third-party sources listed above. It looks like the AFD last month came to the wrong conclusion, but that doesn't mean we should repeat their mistake. Robofish (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up. Certainly notable and sources do seem to also exist. See Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) for ideas on how youtube videos can discussed and how to source the stastistics. -- Banj e  b oi   12:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep not because they're the x'th most popular user and has x views on youtube, but because of the sources User:ThaddeusB has brought in above. They certainly aren't notable enough for separate articles. The current state of the article makes it look delete-worthy, so according to WP:BURDEN it is not at all suprising it was nominated for deletion, and rightly so. The article was deleted before because it was only about one of the individuals of the duo. It only just avoids a WP:1E because half of the sources are about the movie. Oh and would the keep voters above read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Really.--Otterathome (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that the article was in better shape before someone came along and added a bunch of original research. I am about to go back and re-clean it up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I just went and checked Fred's page, which has eight sources verifying notability. Seven should be enough to warrant the keeping of this page. Clem (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Both because they are the second most subscribed on YouTube (with no indication of cheating) and because of the news coverage presented. That an article is short is not a reason to delete either. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2009 (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.