Deletion of Jenny Nicholson

Comment: Nicholson is on the edge of notability, and we should honor her request.  says to consider people's privacy and the possibility of causing harm
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: While I would agree that the subject is notable, they have requested deletion. We have precedent for complying with these requests, see CGP Grey and edits around his name. While this would not technically be a G7 speedy (as she is not the author of the article), we also have the Speedy Deletion criteria for authors who request a page be deleted. In the CGP Grey case, we as editors maintain Grey's privacy because we're decent human beings (sometimes). In its current form, there are very few  with  to make this viable in the long-term. I agree with {{u|Astrophobe}}'s assessment above. Nicholson has a variety of published articles and mainstream mentions, but to get the type of information that we get on other BLP candidates would involve a level of invasion of privacy that would at the very least violate the spirit of . I know that the intentions of {{u|Sheila1988}}, {{u|MadScientistX11}}, {{u|No1lakersfan}} and {{u|TwilightFluttershy}} are good |(I hope), and this is not a suggestion that Nicholson is not talented or notable in Youtube spaces, but we should consider if this is really worth the amount of personal strain that this may cause to the subject of the article, and how much reliable information could theoretically be obtained without violating her privacy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:SIGCOV||WP:NOR||WP:AGF)

Comment: The  requires significant coverage in reliable sources, which hasn't been demonstrated. She has plenty of short mentions, and appears in some lists of YouTube channels, but that doesn't really cut it, as the length of the article as it stands shows. There's not enough RS coverage of Nicholson to write an encyclopedia article about her, for now
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: based on . This was not as clear-cut a case as I expected; I'm basing it on Special:PermaLink/897872177|this revision, as noted above, which had 22 footnotes. It does not appear to me that there is enough coverage from independent reliable sources focused on Nicholson herself. Please note, I'm not arguing that this is a grey area in which we should act in accordance with her preferences; rather, it seems to me that regardless of the request, this is a subject that does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. It's possible that I'm missing something; a well-formed "keep" vote would need to include a list of several |reliable sources, with significant focus on her (as opposed to merely quoting her). The quotes-as-an-expert help, but in the absence of anything besides the ''Washington Post'' article that are substantially about her or her work or focus on her beyond a short quotation, and in strong publications, this should be a "delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERSON||WP:RS)

Comment: per  and the subject not wanting the article in the first place. We don't like sourcing to IMDb, and I know TVTropes certainly isn't meeting our sourcing guidelines in the first place. Not a lot of  either (please don't bother responding about the past state of the article either, it isn't germane to the as-is state of the article now, nor could I even comment on it as I'm not an admin). Definitely keep the '''salting''' until the subject both wants an article, and it's not written in a privacy violating manner
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:NPF||WP:GNG)

Comment: I don't think this will ever be a sufficient BLP because of the credible chance of harm to the subject. In particular, while not necessarily disputing notability, it looks to me right now as though additional information that doesn't violate  and meets notability criteria for inclusion in the article will pretty much always also increase the chance of harm to the subject, and so should not be included per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:BLP)

Comment: if someone can find sufficient secondary sources to meet  guidelines (note: not just any secondary sources, but reliable and verifiable ones) then they should do so. The article doesn't meet these criteria now and going through the history, it never really has. Heavily citing her personal twitter page as past versions did is a gross violation of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NOR)