I'm not sure whether we have ever decided whether a videography of a YouTube personality, even one who seems to pass the notability standard, is itself a suitable separate article. The utterly trivial nature of most of the contents leads me to doubt it.. I suppose this is not the place to decide if it is even suitable content, but I doubt that also. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep: I believe Ryan Higa the person, as well as his body of work, are each independently notable. As the second-most subscribed person on YouTube with various media mentions he certainly seems notable to me. His page receives around 1500-2000 hits per day, placing him in the top 7000 articles by hits.
I will concede that reliable sources generally avoiding discussing his work at length. However, per WP:INHERIT, "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an 'inherited notability' per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums."
I see this as a practical concern related to formatting. On a practical level, such a lengthy videography took up an inordinate amount of space on his article. While I personally find most Web videos trivial, I also believe in describing a body of work that has garnered popular culture appeal. This is simply a way of making that content more accessible to those who want it, and keeping it out of the way for people looking for general information about the person. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Per CaseyPenk. ZappaOMati 04:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)