Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenia Cooney (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that there is enough sustained coverage to overcome BLP1E concerns. RL0919 (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Eugenia Cooney
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP issues. This article is about a Youtuber of borderline notability, whose main claim to fame seems to be being anorexic. Essentially the entire article is about her weight and mental health issues. This article was previously deleted at AFD last year, then restored in September 2019 following a deletion review, as more sources had been found. I'm bringing it back here as it's a complete BLP trainwreck. I'm prepared to accept that this article might possibly pass WP:BIO, due to the number of sources; although most of them are not particularly reliable, with much of it cited to random blogs and self-published sources like YouTube itself. But even if she is technically notable, I'd say this is a case where we should WP:IAR and delete the article. A 'biography' of a microcelebrity that essentially exists to track their weight and mental health is an abomination we're better off without. Robofish (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Notifying participants in previous AFD and DRV: User:Mz7, User:Johnpacklambert, User:Expertwikiguy, User:Andise1, User:Eventhorizon51, User:Jovanmilic97, User:Hobit. Robofish (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article is largely sourced to Youtube videos and no-name clickbait sites like these , which is not acceptable for a BLP, especially one involving these sorts of issues. This from Paper Magazine is a good source, and there are a few ok-ish sources that are not in the article such as  and , but the RS coverage is sparse and usually brief, and I would argue that this still falls under WP:BLP1E, 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. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep- As much as I hate to say it, youtube stars are the new tv stars. Their self indulgent rubbish is notable because the viewers say it is by watching/subscribing. Eugenia Cooney has 2.4 million followers on Youtube and that is a significant number. Her videos get 5-9 million views - and that is a career. BLP1E is not an issue here: she is notable for her self reported condition, and then also notable for having 2.4 million followers. So a WP:BLP2E designation is not any disqualifier and is in fact a fallacious argument. Lightburst (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. While we don't care about subscriber numbers, the media coverage still passes WP:SUSTAINED. ミラP 01:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - she certainly seems to have attracted a great deal of attention, and that's what notability is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep  scope_creep Talk  12:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep She has received lot of press coverage. Some examples:,    . Clovermoss (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.