Deletion of Sam and Nia

Comment: To respond to the article creator's point about creating or contributing to articles to which they are connected, have a look at . 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. -related arguments to keep are neither here nor there, ''particularly'' when YouTubers and other such famous-for-being-famous people are involved
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: Completely notable. They have received a large amount of third party coverage, including articles in http://people.com/celebrity/youtube-vloggers-sam-and-nia-announce-heartbreaking-miscarriage/ People magazine and being profiled for http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/nightline-youtube-parents-sam-nia-quest-clicks-33296478 ABC's Nightline. They have over two million subscribers which more than meets the criteria for  section 2 "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENTERTAINER)