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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Nikki and John Pranksters in Love

Nikki and John Pranksters in Love (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I'm mildly mixed on this myself. I came across this via a post at BLP/N by Marchjuly, where they expressed concern that the page was predominantly sourced with YT videos and various sources that weren't really usable since they were SPS. The only offhand usable source was a Wired article.

Searching brings up very little even when looking under the people's names and their channel handles. They are popular - that cannot be denied - but I don't really see a true depth of coverage here and popularity itself doesn't give notability, it just makes it more likely per WP:ITSPOPULAR.

The article states that clips from their channel have been shown on various clip shows, but I'm not really sure that this is something that would give notability on Wikipedia given that these clip shows show many clips from various different people, sometimes even dozens per show. This is sort of a toss up as to whether or not this would show notability. If we do count this as a sign of notability then that would also mean that being on the show would be a sign of notability for anyone on the show. That's kind of a toss up and one of the reasons why I think that this would be best off getting discussed at AfD. I'm kind of mixed here and I have no problem with this being kept, but I do think that it needs to be seriously discussed.

Now assuming that this is kept, this will need a major overhaul to clean out all of the fan puffery, given that there's a ton of information here that is unsourced.

I'm also nominating the episode page for the series, List of Nikki and John Pranksters In Love episodes. Even if the main series page is kept, I really don't think that we need an episode page for this YT channel and it's fairly rare that we'll have any web series that warrants this without it being something akin to a TV drama series. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• If you're not familiar with shows like the ones in the article, the basic gist is that these shows will find clips of various funny things on the Internet and feature them on their show. Sometimes most or all of the clip can be shown, other times it's just a couple of seconds of footage in a compilation video. There's sometimes, but not always, commentary during the video and one can be featured on the show without actually being asked to be on the show. I'm also under the impression that no one has to ask the clip uploader's permission to use the clips on air. That's what makes this a bit different because normally being on a TV show could give notability, but I'm not sure that the nature of these shows would really give notability in this scenario. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst✈ ^(discuss) 06:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Definitely delete List of Nikki and John Pranksters In Love episodes: "John bets Nikki that she can't drink a whole bottle of hotsauce and Nikki loves a challenge" is a prime example of WP:FANCRUFT. As for the main article? I'm on the fence. The Wired article is a reliable source, just about. It does need a major slice and dice to remove the excessive quantity of trivia and fancruft. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, pretty much per nom, which is pretty much per failing the GNG. Also, I can drink a bottle of hot sauce; it does not hurt me. Drmies ( talk) 15:59, 16 December 2015 (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.