Deletion of B. Scott

Comment: Delete. 17 sources listed, two are youtube videos, four are back to his own blog, and of the rest, as least one is dead. Of those that may actually be live links, they're wordpress blogs of questionable notability, what I would examine  for, and use some of the examples at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: As contributor to this article, I have thoroughly re-read |notability and |reliable sources. Subject is the only openly gay, multi-racial commentator covering all aspects of media regardless of race, gender, orientation, or class. Moreover, similar articles in nature (see: Perez Hilton; Chris Crocker) are written in the same tone and still stand undeleted. Diverse representation of subjects within this area of Wikipedia is necessary and demanded. Subject expands beyond blogging and is clearly an actor, activist and host. All dead links have been fixed, and excluding blogs, youtube and self-sourced material there are now 6 reliable sources backing relevancy of subject ranging from published work to proof of occupation and notability. Just being 'positive' is a unique characteristic but has not been cited by author as proof of validity for article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: Might'' be notable but badly needs something that establishes the fact. (As a side note, I've missed the Good Old-Fashioned "do not delete" fests. We used to have a lot of these. What happened to them, anyway? Oh yeah, #A7|CSD A7 Web happened, that's what - and as it stands, the article is just barely above that criterion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: If 50,000 people slow down to look at a car accident, it's still a car accident and not notable; YouTube statistics don't confer notability because the people who make up those statistics are not experts in anything except their own amusement.  "Lots of people know about X" is not a valid argument here for the notability of X; fame, yes, but notability, no.  Being quoted by other "notable blog sites" doesn't confer notability -- that's a circular argument that is known as "drinking your own bathwater", and in the PR trade as "logrolling".  Of course bloggers talk about other bloggers; if you drive traffic to them, they drive it back to you, and a mutual backscratch is had by all, enabling you to sell more advertising. Getting "coveted celebrity interviews" doesn't confer any notability because the interviewer is just facilitating the subject's self-publishing (being a cog in Rihanna's PR machine/media strategy is less than impressive). The one thing that you've mentioned that would confer notability -- a little bit of it -- is being featured in "Clik Magazine"; IF AND ONLY IF "Clik Magazine" is a |reputable source of expert opinion. Since I've never read more than a few pages of it, I can't say with any degree of accuracy whether they can be trusted to tell anyone about anything. Since they apparently don't know how to spell the word "click", I tend to doubt it, but I'm willing to be convinced. What I'm not willing to do is accept that a
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: As near as I can tell from looking at the references, this individual decides what events he's going to cover, then covers them, and tells us that that's what gives him |notability -- which it doesn't.  Another blogger/YouTube "celebrity" without any |reliable sources as per comments above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)