Deletion of Happyslip

Comment: Ok, you're probably right :). That was my first edit ever; I thought I'd start an article on a person I like. However there are several YouTube users with Wikipedia articles (see Category:YouTube_video_producers). The number of subscribers is regarded as the main parameter of notability on YouTube, and the category above lists '''several''' users which I think fail  even more then she does. You're right about the references, though... I'll see if I can find something outside YouTube
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: I previoulsy said "strong delete", based on faulty evinced and the stuck out that vote. Now that everything is fixed, I still feel the article should be deleted. After reviewing  and , I find that there are no ''well-known, independent'' works or awards referring to HappySlip, nor has she been mentioned in any fashion outside of YouTube and some guy's blog
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:BIO)

Comment: per |the Heymann standard
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: Delete''' - The only |reliable source information about Happyslip independent of "Happyslip" I could find was that "YouTube is sharing ad revenue with its "most prolific" content creators, including Happyslip." That one sentence might be good for the YouTube article, but it's hardly enough write an article on Happyslip. The topic fails  for lack of |reliable source information about Happyslip independent of Happyslip
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: article blatantly passed  after the numerous sources that Ichormosquito found.  Delete votes appear not to be reading the discussion, as they're not providing any rationale for why a half dozen sources should be ignored
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Delete''' I can't believe I missed this when it was first nominated (a full day ago). I think the argument I made in the Kevjumba AfD discussion is applicable here too. A large subscription and/or viewership rate is not enough to establish notability. YouTube, despite how popular it is, is essentially a site of self-published media. I don't see the subject as meeding any of the notability requirements of . Also, take note that a subscription base of 65,000 is really not as significant as it may sound, as (A) viewership on YouTube is restricted to a relatively specific community, and is not as diverse and widespread as say, film, television, or even radio, and (B) compared to the ''regular viewership'' of most entertainers, 65,000 is still a pretty small number. If she had any significant coverage in other media, or was notable for any work outside of YouTube, then I could understand an exception, but as it stands, I don't see any indication that she passes . Also, in general, I think Wikipedia may need specific notability guidelines for internet celebrities, a category that may be specific, but is also relatively unique
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: Current version passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)