RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Blonde In The Belly Of The Beast

Blonde In The Belly Of The Beast | Result: 5-4 for over a week, it stays for now.[edit]

Page on a non-notable Youtuber and doesn't advance the site's mission. Magic Master (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
She isn't really active now anyway, her last stream being 3 months ago, then 4, and then 8. She only has 124,000 subscribers, which in this day and age isn't really notable. Also, please see RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_2021#June_2021, which contains the Great YouTube purge. We deleted Three Arrows for only having ~300,000 subs, which is still more then this. I also am not impressed with the article quality. If someone updates and revises it I'd be open to keeping, but as it is it shouldn't stay. Andrew5 (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
-Hastur! (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
YouTube article, she's not even very active. GeeJayK (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The thing I learned when combing through articles to add to the Florida category is that we cover a lot of nobodies. Hell, people like Issac Bourne and Robin Falkov don't even have Wikipedia pages. And that is to be expected, given that we cover cranks we are bound to cover people well outside the mainstream. And this person is definitely missional to cover, and 125,000 subscribers is not insignificant. I think the article should be kept. Plutocow (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Relatively relevant. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Would you believe she meets our current notability threshold for an article on a YouTuber 125 times over? (We obviously need to revise and update the idea of how many subscribers makes a YouTuber notable enough for us.) Spud (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I have a soft spot for this article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
And I still very opposed to that deletion of Three Arrow's page. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 23:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
We know, you bludgeoned the discussion, but what's important is that it had 6-2 support to delete, setting a precedent. Notability isn't established yet; we need her to be mentioned in at least some sources. As Spud said, documenting the full range of crank ideas doesn't mention we need a page for every cranker, we should be covering ideas. Andrew5 (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

As it stands, many of the claims in the article are bare assertions, and there are stylistic issues (fair bit of second person). The subject seems missional, though, and I’m not sure I’d endorse starting from scratch. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 04:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)