Deletion of King Cid

Comment: Fails . Another non-notable YouTuber with no third-party coverage and as such article is fueled entirely on non-viable sources. Aside from the inclusion of his legal troubles, it's badly-written promotional material
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There ''is'' third-party coverage contrary to {{re|Versace1608|Beemer69}}, and {{re|Johnpacklambert|Mdaniels5757}} are like . Can't say keep since I need input from the ones I'm pinging
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:PERX)

Comment: Firstly, third party sources (independent source) are sources that have no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. All the sources there are third-party sources that have editorial independence. Secondly, he passes  because he has a large fan base, one million subscribers and about 2.2 million views on one of his videos on YouTube
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT)