Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sssniperwolf

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2023 October 27.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sssniperwolf[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Youtube personality. One brief description by Forbes on a top internet influencers list, but the article is totally unsourced and doesn't demonstrate notability. The Forbes reference isn't enough to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Hog Farm (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non-notable and fails WP:GNG. Andrew Base (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've done a quick Google News search and come up with the following: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. That seems like significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to me, unless there's something I'm missing. The article definitely needs a rewrite and maybe moving to her real name (I don't know what the convention here is) but I'm not seeing any reasons to delete. WJ94 (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is in bad shape but there are reliable sources covering it. I think there's enough here to qualify as notable. Michepman (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added some sources as per WJ94, the article still needs a rewrite but at least it has a reference list now, there are enough sources out there that it passes WP:GNG. Ym2X (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.