Deletion of TheReportOfTheWeek (2nd nomination)

Comment: Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Articles from Forbes, CNN and Lenta.ru aren't just plain interviews (especially the Lenta.ru, and yes, I do understand what's written there without the need to use translation tools), they also point out the fact of subject's notability due to the amount of dedicated followers/viewers this person has or the overall interest he generated (both on his YT channel and on Reddit), as well as other facts (such as his notably unique dressing style), all of which aren't based on what the person told in an interview. So those articles are still . The appearance of this person on TV show (Tosh.O) also adds to the notability. All in all I believe this person does meet  and the article is worth keeping
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: I agree that the best sources we have are interviews, and those are problematic. I don't know why  doesn't mention them - the issue was discussed in the past many times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=interview&prefix=Wikipedia+talk%3AIdentifying+reliable+sources%2F&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&searchToken=dpk3kdwkwzt59xzpdk7vxmud6). While Wikipedia:Interviews is classified as an essay, it represents to my knowledge the best consensus on what interviews are - and just as common sense suggests, they are primary sources, unless there's editorial commentary, which is very sparse in the sources provided. Overall, I don't see the subject as one who has received significant, independent, and reliable coverage: he has received passing mentions, and got to publish his own views about himself and some issues in forms of interviews in some reliable outlets - but that fails the independent requirement
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: reference 1 is an interview - does not meet , ref 2 is an interview (perhaps the same interview re-hashed?), the next three are all about the criminal deception after the Manchester bombing in which his photo was posted by others(?) and he had to deny that he was there. Do you get notability by not being somewhere and then denying you were there ? This would be the most vacuuous type of notability it would be possible to imagine. If Wikipedia is prepared to stoop that low then it ceases to be an trust-worthy encyclopaedia IMHO. '''''&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)