Deletion of Eugenia Cooney (2nd nomination)

Comment: Article is largely sourced to Youtube videos and no-name clickbait sites like these https://greatist.com/live/should-youtube-ban-eugenia-cooney http://www.revelist.com/bloggers/eugenia-cooney-youtube-ban/5527/default/2 https://roguerocket.com/2019/07/22/jaclyn-glenn-raises-concerns-over-eugenia-cooneys-recovery/, which is not acceptable for a BLP, especially one involving these sorts of issues. https://www.papermag.com/eugenia-cooney-return-2639918190.html This from ''Paper Magazine'' is a good source, and there are a few ok-ish sources that are not in the article such as https://www.newstatesman.com/2019/02/story-eugenia-cooney-emaciated-youtuber-internet-thought-was-dead and https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/eugenia-cooney-youtube-new-photo/, but the RS coverage is sparse and usually brief, and I would argue that this still falls under , which is what the article was deleted for in 2018. All of the coverage is related to her health issues and recovery - there's very little about what she actually does as a Youtuber. This is a piece of internet drama that has attracted some cursory media attention but it doesn't justify an invasively detailed BLP on a young woman
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: While we don't care about subscriber numbers, the media coverage still passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED)