Deletion of CGP Grey

Comment: the primary coverage is fine—it just doesn't contribute towards notability. If you think it's a bit too much then the "simplest solution" is to fix it yourself, not to delete (which is neither the simplest action nor a solution at all). Notability is established through coverage cumulatively across, by descending significance: https://www.dailydot.com/tags/cgp-grey/ nine ''Daily Dot'' articles, https://gizmodo.com/search?blogId=4&q=c.g.p.%20grey&timestamp=1617102105510 four ''Gizmodo'' articles, two CBS articles (https://web.archive.org/web/20121104054011/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504784_162-57364879-10391705/eskimos-to-not-have-100s-of-words-for-snow-and-other-myths-debunkedhttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-to-become-a-british-monarch-and-why-it-wont-be-you/), ''https://web.archive.org/web/20130303041057/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/25/why-is-the-pope-always-so-old-video/ Washington Post'', ''https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/18/robots-steal-your-job_n_5687541.html HuffPost'', ''https://mashable.com/2012/07/24/youtube-tough-topics/ Mashable'', ''https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-buzz/become-pope-instructional-video-goes-viral-190357513.html Yahoo'' and ''https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/dec/21/the-50-best-podcasts-of-2016 The Guardian'' (about ''Hello Internet''). Each source in this list except maybe the last two is (just about) long enough for significance (and reliable, independent and secondary) and the aggregate meets  as they are about a diversity of videos across a wide time range
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: so clearly this guy is much better known than that heavily primary sourced soapy article appeared to indicate, with more eyes on it, any chance we can strip the weak stuff out and leave/add stronger 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SECONDARY)