Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolfo Lora

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 delete. I agree that Luther Aragones's comment is not clear. It also does not quite address the notability concerns and the rebuttals haven't been addressed either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adolfo Lora

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable youtuber. All the sources I can find are WP:CHURNALISM (like freepressjournal.in and thestatesmen article), the rest are interviews/passing mentions or otherwise unreliable. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON Praxidicae (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should take it into account and not be deleted, remember that it is a piece of article that has this material. I have also added more references to it.--Luther Aragones (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Luther Aragones Your comment makes no sense. What should be taken into account? What material? Praxidicae (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae I am not contradicting myself in what I say. I referred to the material, say the article created, which is a piece of information and especially to evaluate the references added. Although taking into account this article there are many others that if they have any three references, this one has even more. Some are in an interview as he has said, but in the same way information about him. That is why I consider that it should be taken into account when applying this template.--Luther Aragones (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources either are not WP:RS or WP:IS (interviews). Subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.07:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete It's easy to become successful on Youtube if you make the kind of content that most people want. Pancho507 (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.