Deletion of DMurawski

Comment: Please read Anturiaethwr's comment above and read  to understand why this line of argument is likely not to help you
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:BIGNUMBER)

Comment: You may want to take a look at , which says, essentially, that having a large number of anything isn't a valid source of notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:BIGNUMBER)

Comment: Fails notability guidelines per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, '''open wikis''', blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely '''not acceptable'''" as sources, according to  (emphasis mine).  (And really, there's an entire wiki devoted to lonelygirl15?  What is the world coming to?)  Special:Contributions/199.8.47.12|199.8.47.12
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS)

Comment: Just looked again and two paragraphs were entirely unsourced except for one unrelated link, so per  they had to be removed immediately.  Of course, in the event the subject of the article turns out to be notable and references can be found, I'm sure it can be added again
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Per .  View counts are notoriously unreliable and open to manipulation too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:BIGNUMBER)

Comment: He may have many YouTube views but there are no reliable and independent sources to back up claims, and such it fails  notability policy. &nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)