Deletion of Chanty Binx

Comment: Per . Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per  &ndash;&ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SINGLEEVENT)

Comment: A quick Google search revealed many more reliable sources. I am not sure if  has been done
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: The HuffPost link is a textbook example of a |opinion blog, not a news story, and all statements sourced to it must be attributed to the writer. It cannot be used as a source for facts
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:NEWSBLOG)

Comment: Pretty clear 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: All the coverage is about, or stems from, that one incident (BLP1E) and  is very relevant here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:AVOIDVICTIM)

Comment: Classic  with a dash of . Someone protested during a lecture at a uni! They said bad words when heckled! Something like that probably happens every week at major universities so it fails  as well because I don't see any secondary sources that have commented on the significance of the protest or the reaction
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:ATTACK||WP:N)

Comment: First and foremost, as explicitly stated at : {{tq|"Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject"}}. Those sources can still support the subject's ''notability'' (which I'll get to), but we need more than notability to have an article -- we need verifiability, reliable sources, and content that can pass our BLP policies. As the three sources we have so far are blogs, we have no reliable sources for this BLP. That's a dealbreaker up front. Moving on nonetheless... We have three sources. One is a HuffPo opinion piece that, while it can help to establish notability, is only actually reliable for the opinions of its author, not the facts it contains (especially when talking about a BLP -- and especially a BLP in this context). It's also the ''only'' source cited that even mentions the name "Chanty Binx". We can tell the other articles are about her because what they're really about is this one video and the way people in the Internet responded to her. For example, the Daily Dot piece, which relies on exclusively on lousy sources for this story, is all about how people make fun of her on the Internet. So we can say ''that'' she was harassed, but how could we use that to build a good encyclopedia article without it turning into a list of bad things people have said about her? Jezebel tells the same story, and includes things like quoted ''YouTube comments''. We have a video, what transpired in the video, nasty things the Internet said, the fact that some recognizable blogs picked up on those nasty things and on the video, and the opinions of the bloggers themselves. Nowhere is there sufficient content to build a biography, even if we ''could'' rely on blogs for material. You could talk about how many  there are, but there's a reason that's not a valid argument at AfD -- ghits don't always mean reliable sources (especially, I would argue, in the case of Internet memes). The vast majority of those hits are in the chan universe, the MRA universe, or social media. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPSPS||WP:GHITS)