Deletion of Ben Going

Comment: I just found a link to a CNET news blog story called http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-6146319-7.html YouTube hosts New Year's Eve Bash.  Quote: ''Special video messages from YouTube celebrities, such as Boh3m3, Smosh, Terra Naomi, Renetto, Chad Vadar, and The WineKone, along with artists from WMG labels Atlantic Records, Warner Bros. Records and Warner Music International will be featured on the home page.''  According to Going at http://www.moviepicturefilm.com/inter.php?itemid=1162, he got paid for this, which might help him pass Wikipedia:Notability (web)''The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster''  YouTube is certainly a well known medium, and this New Years promotion, plus Going's connections with the YouTube staff, http://www.moviepicturefilm.com/inter.php?itemid=1162 says he is in regular contact with a high ranking employee, argue against his output's being, from  ''Trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites''.  The CNET link is another source, anyway.  Also: if we delete Ben Going, he would be the only "YouTube celebrity" on that link's list without a Wikipedia page, not that "well there are other pages like it" is the most substantial argument
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: per existence of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I'm seeing |reliable sources including The New York Times, The Associated Press, and CNET.  The article is a little spammy, but it looks like it just needs a little clean-up
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 16|deletion review gave general support for Ichormosquito's rewrite. It's clear the subject has received some attention from the mainstream press so I see no reason to deny on / grounds. There's plenty of sourcing, which meets  as well. While the current article may be a little too fawning for my tastes, this relative deletionist (hell, I prod2'd & twice db-repost'd the prior incarnations of this article) smells something fishy with this AfD... &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:BIO||WP:V)

Comment: The verbiage needs to be brought more into line with , and the YouTube videos need to be stripped out of the references, but article style is not all that relevant to a deletion discussion.  The main question at AfD is, "Can the article be saved?"  This article's subject has coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, and is thus |notable.  I see no major problems involving  in the present version of the article.  That's all there is to it.  Oh yes, and block all the puppets
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NOTE||WP:BLP)