Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LDShadowLady (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Noting BLPREQUESTDELETE. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LDShadowLady

[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)

Subject has requested deletion. As noted in the previous AfD closed as no consensus, there is some coverage, but in my opinion not enough to establish clear notability that overrides the BLPREQUESTDELETE concerns. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and due to the current lack of sourcing—the first two sources are primary and the third is not independent. Perryprog (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, poor sourcing. As the subject has requested deletion due to privacy concerns (she hasn't released her name, thus non-public), it clearly meets the criteria of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Additionally, the sources are weak, primarily consisting of social media links. Editor760 (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even putting BLP concerns aside, significant coverage in reliable, independent sources does not appear to exist. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was taking a look at the sources mentioned in the prior discussion, and considering attempting to improve this, but the fact that the BLP vio existed since the articles creation, the poor quality of even the best sources in the prior discussion or previous versions of the article, and the fact that the subject requests deletion all push me towards delete. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep - the subject didn't request deletion, just that her real name not be used. She uses her alias and photo on her social media so I don't think she's worried about those items being public. I just contacted Google since they indexed the version with her real name before we could revert it. I added some coverage - she was the #2 female YouTuber in the UK a few years back. That's enough for a weak keep. The question now is, do we leave this article up because it might be a magnet for personal info, or do we remove it to protect her from being doxxed? Tough choice but I think as long as she's notable enough, the benefit of compiling knowledge comes first. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote due to help desk request. IP address of request geolocates to subjects home area. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Someone claiming to be subject requested the article be deleted over IRC. I have not verified their identity, but I am taking their request at face value, and it was the same person as Wikipedia:Help desk#Please help, Wikipedia doxed me. Being "a magnet for personal info" was part of their argument. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 19:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she's a low profile individual and imo not notable anyway but if WP really wants to deal with gender gaps and equity with women, we should start by listening to them when they ask to have articles deleted, especially when they are not major public figures. CUPIDICAE💕 19:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requested and taking as WP:GOODFAITH. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough there would be hundreds of youtuber pages if this was notable enough which it is not. Also the page has many other problems. TigerScientist Chat 18:52, 18 February 2021 (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.