Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. Scott
If 50,000 people slow down to look at a car accident, it's still a car accident and not notable; YouTube statistics don't confer notability because the people who make up those statistics are not experts in anything except their own amusement.  "Lots of people know about X" is not a valid argument here for the notability of X; fame, yes, but notability, no.  Being quoted by other "notable blog sites" doesn't confer notability -- that's a circular argument that is known as "drinking your own bathwater", and in the PR trade as "logrolling".  Of course bloggers talk about other bloggers; if you drive traffic to them, they drive it back to you, and a mutual backscratch is had by all, enabling you to sell more advertising. Getting "coveted celebrity interviews" doesn't confer any notability because the interviewer is just facilitating the subject's self-publishing (being a cog in Rihanna's PR machine/media strategy is less than impressive). The one thing that you've mentioned that would confer notability -- a little bit of it -- is being featured in "Clik Magazine"; IF AND ONLY IF "Clik Magazine" is a |reputable source of expert opinion. Since I've never read more than a few pages of it, I can't say with any degree of accuracy whether they can be trusted to tell anyone about anything. Since they apparently don't know how to spell the word "click", I tend to doubt it, but I'm willing to be convinced. What I'm not willing to do is accept that a
— NONE, NONE
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)