(Updated; see below.)
I'm surprised that Minute Physics would get this wrong:
It's true that there's no wavelength of light that's pink and that the color magenta is basically white light with the middle wavelengths omitted. But despite what Minute Physics claims, the color usually referred to as "pink" isn't magenta; it's pale red, or (in photography and videography) a mix of roughly equal levels of blue and green light plus a greater amount of red.
There are many other colors seen by humans that don't correspond to single wavelengths, such as brown and cyan, not to mention dozens of colors women have names for and men don't. Moreover, what we see as yellow can be monochromatic yellow (as in a pair of emission lines of sodium) or instead a mixture of red and green with no yellow wavelengths at all. (Televisions and computer monitors, for example, produce no yellow light; they fake it with red and green.)
In brief, color isn't the same as wavelength. Minute Physics has that basic idea right at least, but the people involved, who are otherwise bright and charming, no doubt kind to children and admired even by their enemies, need to read up more on color perception and photography.
And equating pink with all other wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum besides green is just downright bizarre...
Update: A comment on this post form someone named Violet suggests that calling magenta "pink" is not so bizarre after all, and I must concede that Violet has a point. The subject has come up in the context of, oddly enough, British politics, as explained by John Oliver in a clip I included in this later post.