Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safiya Nygaard (2nd nomination)
A subject that is "plausibly notable", especially a |BLP, should be looked at very closely. I saw the article, AFD tag, then the references. My first thought was, "WOW! Twenty-one references". Then I proceeded to the AFD and read down. I found a user attempting to save an article (not a bad thing), that included arguments of |other stuff exists, and six other references. The first three are about quitting Buzzfeed, the next two are magazine type articles on melting lip-stick, and the last about see-through pants. The references on the article include 10 references on the article are from the subject, reference # 11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x1gxNHS5Yk&list=PL0PtUxA4JeEIltd7kWBSKlbEr8AHgnJG4 Boldly, Ladylike and #13 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcOeS5aEIadAhKtJ9_VKAIw  BuzzFeed, Ladylike is junk, two are duplicates not primarily about the subject. Alright, I am tired and a review of the sources are "not" enough (14 of the 21 are self- or refbombs) with reliability giving notability". Just a bunch of references either primary, or several placed to make an article look notable. Can of worms to start including every v-logger with followers (how many is subjective and for MANY future considerations) on the internet. ---- NOT COOL
— User:Otr500, 13:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BLP||WP:OTHER (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)