Deletion of James Charles & Tati Controversy

Comment: I would agree that this violates  per above. PewDiePie vs T-Series and other such articles may also have trouble passing  but they're not taking all of the other baggage that this entry has i.e failing , ,  and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:10YT||WP:10YT||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NEUTRAL||WP:N||WP:GOSSIP)

Comment: This article's topic does not seem to be encyclopedic or meet . Certain events like KSI vs Logan Paul or PewDiePie vs T-Series are noteworthy but this is not; every internet feud and occurrence cannot be documented. This articles sources also include a Buzz-Feed article, a you tube video by one of the content creators in question (which probably violates ), and two different subscriber-Count tables from the same website
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NEUTRAL)

Comment: Fails  Proverbial tempest in a teapot. Number of youtube subscribers does not equal notability. Every week, someone is going to gain or lose subscribers to whatever forum. Next month a new 'record' will be set. That doesn't make it significant. Fails Appearing on a gossip page doesn't either. I don't see a wikipedia page for the BBC article in which he told people to stop showing up at his house, I don't believe that this warrants one either. While the news orgs mentioned are often reliable, the coverage for this crisis is not. As others have mentioned, what other scandal pages exist doesn't rationalize this one , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER||WP:QS||WP:INN||WP:OTHER)

Comment: It fails  by a long shot, especially on the "news reports" section. This controversy is only impacting the YouTube society. It will definitely not impact anything world-wide except YouTube
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to James Charles (Internet personality). He is the subject of the controversy. How much to merge to either article is a content matter for the talk pages of those articles. But this is clearly 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I think this incident is best to be redirected to the James Charles (Internet personality)#Controversies section. I agree with {{u|Laurel_Wreath_of_Victors}} on various news coverage like BBC, CNN (and NBC) which makes it good enough to be mentioned in James' article. I am strongly against deleting the page since it adds size to the database. (
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap (WP:CHEAP)

Comment: Tati Westbrook does not even have a Wikipedia page, yet, a fringe internet debacle in which she is one of the parties does? This article violates , , , , etc. At best, this should of course be mentioned on the corresponding parties' Wikipedia pages but does not deserve its own standalone page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:PRIMARY||WP:SELFPUB)

Comment: As per all above. Total  violation. Wikipedia ≠ tabloid gossip site
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Clear example of , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:10YT)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS and the event has not been able to demonstrate it will have any  impacts
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING)

Comment: A very clear case of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)