Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam and Nia (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Sam and Nia
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I nominated this same article for deletion in 2018, and while it ended with "Keep", the votes then were not convincing and the article has not improved at all since that time. Doing a cursory review of the sources currently in the article, a lot of them are YouTube videos posted by the subject themselves which on their own are not reliable. Many of the other articles are about the cheating scandal with the husband or the miscarriage and subsequent birth announcement shortly after the miscarriage, which honestly seem like the subject is only notable for one (okay *two*) event(s). Other than the two "scandals", which had gotten slight coverage at the time, what makes this vlogging family stand out from the tons of others on YouTube with lots of subscribers, views (although their views have plummeted a lot since the creation of this article, FWIW), and articles about them here and there. The subject has not received further or sustained coverage in the media post-the incidents, which happened numerous years ago now. Andise1 (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Internet,  and Texas.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - I would like to point out that in the past year this Wikipedia page has had over 12,000 views, so it appears people are still looking it up and finding that page to be useful. Also, this point you made: "The subject has not received further or sustained coverage in the media post-the incidents," is not criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. It appears you have a personal motive for removing this article, especially since you are the same person who nominated to have it deleted the first time and that was shot down and here you are doing it again without any justification other than your own opinion that runs contrary to the rules of Wikipedia and the support of other Wikipedians.Matthew T Rader (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As stated, if you remove all the YouTube video sources, which are not notable, then you are left with a small handful of articles discussing the cheating scandal and miscarriage. I am not seeing any articles that discuss the subject outside of those incidents, nor am I seeing coverage after those two incidents left the media cycle. I fail to see what makes the subject notable, as one or two events that receive some news coverage do not make a subject inherently notable. While not all coverage needs to be current, the fact that no coverage exists outside of the two incidents and no coverage has been released since 2015, it shows a lack of notability for this family in terms of them being YouTube vloggers, and very limited short-term notability for the scandals. Andise1 (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: no sustained coverage. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that they currently have a mini series on PureFlix that Amazon Prime (https://www.primevideo.com/detail/Sam-and-Nia/0NIT9TIPGHFYE8R80SE8K0O9NG) has also picked up and is airing. Matthew T Rader (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That series needs reliable, independent coverage to be included in the article. Upon a Google search, I am seeing no such coverage of the series.
 * There is simply not enough coverage of this family out there to support an article. Should more coverage come available in the future, a new article can be created, but as it stands now, they are not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Andise1 (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Most of the coverage in People and the like is fluff. He had an Ashley Madison account, she forgave him. They're pregnant but they had a miscarriage. I'm not seeing why any of this amounts to SIGCOV beyond normal celebrity gossip. Oaktree b (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is something in the New York Times, but I'm at my limit for free articles. I'm not hoping for much. Anyone can click on the link above and confirm what it says. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is what the New York Times article says about the family, it is largely about their few "viral" moments and touches on child labor in terms of YouTube kids. It does not establish any sort of notability for this family.
 * "And no YouTube couple has pushed the limits of the family genre more than Sam and Nia. “[singing]: We’re in this together.” The first time Sam and Nia Rader went viral was in 2014, when they installed a dashcam on their minivan, dubbed themselves the Good Looking Parents, and lip-synched a song from “Frozen.” The second time Sam and Nia went viral was when Sam extracted Nia’s pee from an unflushed toilet and then announced his wife’s surprise pregnancy to her. “What did you do? Did you get a dropper out of the toilet? No, you didn’t.” “I did.” — “No way.” At least that’s what they said happened. “Are you 100 percent serious?” “Well, yeah, I just did. That’s what I was doing when I was taking a dump.” [laughing] This is the part where I try to think of what’s not so bad about this trend. “Whoa, oh, man.” O.K., so these family vloggers show the messy, negative parts of parenting — “Ew, yuck.” — not just the idyllic, cutesy stuff. “Gross.” Andise1 (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redacted due to excessive quotation of a copyrighted source. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 10:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep (barely): Sources such as Nightline ABC News, Inside Edition, Cosmopolitan, People, BuzzFeed, Time Mag, E! Entertainment Television, Vanity Fair, The Washington Post. A subject doesn't get this much attention from all these RS without being notable on some level.
 * All the Youtube promo needs to removed and ce article to focus on content that has IS RS.  // Timothy :: talk  05:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They are only notable for the two incidents, the cheating scandal and the miscarriage. Where is the sustained coverage? Where is the coverage about their YouTube channel? I am not seeing any of that doing a Google search. Andise1 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  00:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep agree with the above comment as there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Washington Post, ABC news, Vanity Fair and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They are only notable for the two incidents, the cheating scandal and the miscarriage. Where is the sustained coverage? Where is the coverage about their YouTube channel? I am not seeing any of that doing a Google search. Andise1 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, as the article has 51 sources. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The amount of sources is irrelevant, the quality of the sources and what the sources are about is what is used to determine notability. Andise1 (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but being the 3rd most influential YouTubers of 2015 is very notable, as well as being number six of 7 of YouTube's most shocking scandals is quite infamous. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.