Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam and Nia


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 18:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sam and Nia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not believe this YouTube couple/family are notable enough to be on Wikipedia. I see the sources in the article, however, most of them are about single events that happened with this family that got them notoriety (two scandals, an alleged miscarriage, a few viral videos). Not to mention it seems awfully promotional, with statements such as "They have over 100 videos that exceed one million views, eight videos with over 10 million views, and three that have over 20 million views" and also later on in the intro "The video was an instant success and went viral in march of 2014", which seems like it was written by someone trying to paint them in a good light instead of in a neutral way. Also, plenty of the sources are from either Facebook, YouTube, or a photography website of the article creator. In short, I don't see how they are any more notable than other family vloggers who document their lives on YouTube. This family just happened to have a few controversies, but nothing that really makes them stand out. Just wanted to add one more thing, I went and checked and the creator of this article is Matthew T Rader, who is related to Samuel Rader (see this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/infinite-magic/3604255935), and Matthew made no indication of being connected to Samuel while creating this article. Andise1 (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything on Wikipedia that says people related to the subject can't create/contribute to their articles. It is not a promotional piece at all. It actually highlights a lot of negative press they received as well, the information is very unbiased. The information about video views was inspired by Wikipedia articles about other YouTubers, if that is considered superfluous then remove it. I think your reasons for deletion are not fair at all. Their video of them lip syncing in the car went incredibly viral and started the whole trend of making videos of lip syncing while driving. Prior to them, such video were not common at all. This family has been discussed and talked about in just about every major media outlet on numerous occasions. They were also very connected to the Ashley Madison hack scandal.

If you look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_YouTubers, you will many many YouTubers that far less well known than they are with much less subscribers. I looked through just the A's and found YouTubers with less than a million subscribers and virtually no media attention whatsoever. So according to that list, they are absolutely notable enough to be on wikipedia. Actually, they should be added to that list. Matthew T Rader 23:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A couple more notable things about them have been published in well known magazines online. The Verge in June 2017 said Sam caused one of the five biggest YouTube scandals of all time. . That's pretty notable. And they were also considered the 3rd most influential YouTubers of 2015 by The Daily Dot in December 2015. Those are two very notable things about them, that many, if not the vast majority, of other YouTubers with pages on Wikipedia cannot claim. Matthew T Rader 23:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. To respond to the article creator's point about creating or contributing to articles to which they are connected, have a look at WP:COI. It is, at best, generally a bad idea, and usually held to be a good idea if you indicate your connection to the subject somewhere early on in the piece. Commonsense would also dictate similarly, I should have hoped. My rationale for the weak delete is that the vast majority of the sources here are YouTube videos themselves and the like. Happy to revise this opinion if the non-social-media material is shown to be sufficiently reliably-sourced. Claims of "starting a trend" are always difficult to support in this day and age, but if they can be, then there's a point in their favour. WP:OTHERSTUFF-related arguments to keep are neither here nor there, particularly when YouTubers and other such famous-for-being-famous people are involved. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I just reread the COI rules, I unintentionally missed those suggestions. I don't think a deletion is necessary, but instead have someone edit it to remove any appearance of a bias. This article was not written at their request. How can I include in the article my relationship with the subject? Please look at all of the non-social media sources, many of the sources are from very reputable News and Magazine sources. I was a wikipedia contributor before they became well known. Matthew T Rader 04:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – This is obviously notable, so it could be referenced.
 * There's no need to include your connection in the article (since it's not "your" article, in that anyone and every can edit it, that would be counterproductive). As per this part of the link I referred you to earlier, there are a couple of simple steps you can take, and I'm sure that - in the event that the article is kept, or if it can indeed be re-written to get over the assorted difficulties it has at present - someone or several someones will edit it accordingly anyway. The fact that you created it doesn't mean it can't be kept, either, so while conflict of interest is important and there are those sort of "arm's length" things to do as per earlier, I wouldn't be concerned about the article being deleted purely for that reason. Having had another look at the non-social-media sources - my initial look at them was earlyish in the morning, so it never hurts to have a more thorough look later in the day with a working brain - my earlier opinion is confirmed. The couple read as having been the online equivalent of a nine-day wonder, albeit a nine-day wonder caught up in the more notable Ashley Madison hack. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 10:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 10:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 10:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

How can someone, or a family, that has been watch by people all over the world over 750 million times not be notable? Matthew T Rader 13:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Raw numbers don't confer notability in and of themselves, for a start. Notability comes from in-depth coverage by reliable, independent sources, and usually over a sustained period of time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Delete While I agree that this family does have a presence as vloggers I am not satisfied that they have any more presence than others in the same genre. I believe that the only major thing that could save this article is the fact that they have won an award from a major organization such as the Artists Music Guild. However, even with that Mr. Rader sourced that award back to a wikipedia source which would be improper. Sourcing is clearly outlined at WP:Sourcing. While I can be persuaded to change my stand on the delete, at this moment several things would have to be changed within the article and more sourcing to prove notability would need to be established. If I may make a suggestion, it would be this. I would research other articles found here regarding video bloggers and see how they are written and formatted so that should this article survive this WP:AFD it might not continue to find itself in the line of fire. Follow this link to a list of similar articles >--Canyouhearmenow 01:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 03:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Completely notable. They have received a large amount of third party coverage, including articles in People magazine and being profiled for ABC's Nightline. They have over two million subscribers which more than meets the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER section 2 "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Cait.123 (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2018 (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.