Deletion of Magibon (3rd nomination)

Comment: In detail: First claims that the individual is not notable are not credible. The individual meets . Second, the specific information that the individual does not want in Wikipedia is in multiple other media sources. Whether that information should be in Wikipedia is a distinct issue that is a matter of editorial decision making not a matter for AfD. Third, Magibon has willingly participated and continues to participate in her public interaction as a celebrity (now having been a voice actor in a movie and having appeared in a public event as recently as October 22). Courtesy deletion for a willing public figure is not a great idea for reasons I and others have enumerated in the past
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I would rather see the person's personal information kept that way (as personal) than the article kept and be open to attack vandals or others willing to defame a living person (see ). Unless someone is willing to |rollback all edits going back to sometime around June or |request for oversight, I have to side for deletion. The fact is that the personal information will still be present in the article's history unless rollback, oversight, or article deletion occurs - that is something page protection cannot accomplish in this case. Nothing against the article, it notability or lack thereof, etc.; but protecting the actual person is more important than keeping the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:ROLLBACK||WP:OVER)

Comment: How many minor Youtube celebrities there are is not particularly relevant to this discussion. The subject of this particular article happens to have the most viewed Youtube channel in Japan, and has received extensive mainstream media coverage. Could you be more specific as to how you think this fails otability criteria? Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Under  this person is not even remotely notable.  The article has serious sourcing as well as  issues as well.  Undue weight is being given to her job situation as well:   Delete, delete, delete, a thousand times delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NPOV||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: for the same reason given by DGG, above. Wikipedia has the  policy to guard against unsourced information being put into articles. If there's something here without a reputable source, delete it. If certain personal information has been made available via reputable media, then it's fair game
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Article is fine as it is.  If it's prone to vandalism then protect it.  Also... I REALLY don't see how a Wikipedia bio can be a breach of contract for someone unless they are the ones who created their own article which would be a .  I would venture to say that there are hundreds of vandalisms a day that "slander" other people and we are not deleting their articles!  Argument to Delete is not a proper argument under Wikipedia policies as far as I know
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: There is nothing to prevent somebody to create an article about somebody else. If the subject is |notable, then the article stays and should follow  policy. However, if you are the subject him/herself, then I suggest you to read Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BLP)