Deletion of Troll Station (YouTube Channel)

Comment: meets  and cannot be deleted because of  as there's been lots of reliable coverage prior to the pitch invasion prank.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2688755/Watch-hilariously-unimpressed-reaction-Londons-commuters-man-dances-wildly-techno-packed-Tube-platform.htmlhttp://www.london24.com/news/quirky-london/pranksters_sneak_into_leisure_centre_after_hours_and_film_themselves_skinny_dipping_on_the_slides_1_3855404http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/486609/Prankster-causes-security-scare-after-biting-commuters-in-Luis-Suarez-stunthttp://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/11611378.VIDEO__Pranksters_enjoy_after_hours_skinny_dip_in_Gravesend_s_Cascades_Leisure_Centre/http://www.irishexaminer.com/examviral/fun-times/an-awkward-and-quite-funny-nightclub-on-the-northern-line-286435.htmlhttp://www.news.com.au/national/rush-hour-the-stories-you-need-to-know-today/story-fncynjr2-1227032660048http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2758050/If-s-not-not-coming-Pranksters-set-makeshift-NIGHTCLUB-London-Tube-carriage-complete-banging-music-bouncers.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/active/11096236/Tube-carriage-nightclub-prank-baffles-London-Underground-passengers.htmlhttp://elcomercio.pe/redes-sociales/youtube/youtube-mujer-acosa-sexualmente-hombres-experimento-noticia-1771967http://www.larepublica.pe/17-11-2014/youtube-asi-reaccionan-los-hombres-cuando-son-coqueteados-por-una-mujer-videohttp://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/11496507.VIDEO__Lewisham_pranksters__fake_bank_robbery_causes_online_controversy/http://www.gentside.com/gta-5/troll-station-vole-des-voitures-a-londres-comme-dans-gta-5_art54804.html etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: While there are claims of the channel being controversial, I fail to see where this channel has really gained that much coverage in the news. There was coverage for one fairly minor incident last month, but I can't see where this was a major enough event to really warrant keeping on that basis alone. It pretty much falls under  when you get down to it, since only a handful of news outlets bothered to write about it and the whole thing was forgotten fairly quickly. Just being in the news briefly isn't enough to warrant having an article- heck, look at Belle Knox. She received far, far more coverage than this channel did and the first incarnation of the article was still deleted, despite worldwide coverage. This channel has received maybe .001% of the same coverage and even then it's limited to UK papers. As far as the other pranks go, none of them gained any coverage in reliable sources, which is what you'd need to prove notability. You have  sources (official YT channel, Twitter, etc) and  sources (IMDb), but they cannot show notability. Something is not automatically notable because it exists (), it's interesting (), or even because it's popular (), although I will say that the channel's subscriber numbers are fairly low in comparison to other people on YouTube. (My favorite example is to hold up Cryaotic, someone who has almost '''2 million''' subscribers and still fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines.) When/if the channel gains more coverage they could potentially be re-added, but at this time it is pretty much  for an entry. We can't guarantee that the channel will gain more coverage (), as most media coverage of these sort of things is sort of the luck of the draw. For every Alan Abel there are at least a thousand others who tried to become a professional prankster and maybe got a little coverage, but ultimately failed because the media didn't give them any coverage. You can't guarantee that they'll be in the news again. Rory, I know that you want to show your fandom and keep the page, but the channel just isn't notable at this point in time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:PRIMARY||WP:TRIVIAL||WP:ITEXISTS||WP:INTERESTING||WP:ITSPOPULAR||WP:TOOSOON||WP:CRYSTAL)