Deletion of AsapScience

Comment: The sources currently used in the article (presented by QEDK and DanielRigal) look pretty reliable, and the fact that AsapScience has garnered coverage in a multitude of news publications (from different countries, and which are not fanbases) is indicative of notability. The article could surely be improved to use fewer , and there indeed exist several more reliable sources that have more than trivial mentions. For example, there is https://www.itbusiness.ca/news/what-asapscience-wants-brands-to-know-about-sponsored-content/51638 a very descriptive interview (in a third-party publication), https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/04/25/hannah-hart-asap-science-studio71/ recognition from Studio71 (a prominent media company), and https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/how-mitch-and-greg-of-asapscience-are-inspiring-young_uk_5b91b1a4e4b0f023e4a604fb evidence of their influence online. The continuous publication of such sources fulfills  and the information given (beyond strict metrics and video content) passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS||WP:SUSTAINED||WP:GNG)

Comment: A quick look at GNews shows the presence of continued,  coverage, a lot of which is also SIGNIFICANT. Meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED||WP:GNG)