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 Speedy Delete. Speedy delete as promotional paid editing and per WP:SNOW. Randykitty (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Lievano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Autobiography of an unremarkable Youtuber, sourced to Youtube and 9GAG. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Kolbasz (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nominated for speedy deletion as unambiguous promotion. AlanS (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hired a professional to write the page in a neutral way. This is no form of self promotion either. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofloantonio (talk • contribs) 09:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (possibly speedy per WP:CSD#A7), non-notable youtuber, no reliable sources in the article, none found via a news or book search. @Sofloantonio: - unlike quite a few wikipedians, I think there's a market for paid assistance where an experienced editor assembles sources and creates a good article (or even a good article) that perfectly aligns with our policies ... unfortunately this is not one of those cases. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - article was speedy deleted per A7 on 2 February Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this to be against Wikipedia's guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofloantonio (talk • contribs) 10:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The basic guidelines for biographies state that "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." No source you have listed is reliable or independent. Youtube and Instagram will publish anything you ask them to, so we cannot trust anything they say to represent a neutral point of view, which is a core policy. Unless you have been mentioned in major newspapers, magazines or national terrestrial television and radio, it's unlikely we'll be able to find any independent source to write an article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of secondary sources online. I'll be updating the page soon. I am working on this with a professional. Sorry about my mistakes as I post on my behalf what is written for me. Thanks Ritchie333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofloantonio (talk • contribs) 10:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A news search gives back a Twitter feed. Again, twitter will repost anything, if you want to tweet "George Osborne is a complete and utter pillock", they will not stop you. So it's not a reliable source. A news search brings back a few passing mentions of somebody answering to Antonio Lievano, but they appear to be decades old. Unless you were in the news in the 1940s, I don't think these are anything relating to you. Sorry, but I think you're going to struggle getting this article up to standards. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A news search for "SoFloAntonio" will find you plenty of entries. People call me "SoFlo" and my full name is not in any of my works, but my Twitter, Vine, Facebook & Instagram. I assure you that with a new search on SoFloAntonio and any of my pranks (especially my big ones like yesterday's Drugging Girls Prank) have plenty of secondary sources and such. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofloantonio (talk • contribs)

News search for "SoFloAntonio". One hit to YouTube - as discussed, unreliable. Newspaper search for "SoFloAntonio". Zero entries. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also to be fair take a look at this search which is for "PewDiePie" the largest YouTubers with 28 millions fans: PewDiePie News Search As you can see even he has 5 articles. Other famous YouTubers like him with Wikipedia pages have no mentions on their news search. Also Google doesn't index all news articles on their search. I still feel like there is plenty secondary sources. I'll be adding them in once I compile them. Let me know what you think.

Give me a break Ritchie333. It's not like I right meaningless "LOL" remarks across my page. haha. :)

Perhaps you can also assist me in making this work. I mean let's look at it like this. You want a page that fits the guidelines and I want a page to be within the guidelines as well so it stays up. Why don't we work together on fixing it up? Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofloantonio (talk • contribs)

• Delete Not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. AlanS (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been edited. Many secondary sources from just the past 24 hours were added. More articles will be added soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofloantonio (talk • contribs) 04:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Weak sources, fails WP:GNG. Paid editor is being WP:DISRUPTive. Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nominated for speedy on the basis of unambiguous promotion again after creator of page removed template. AlanS (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2014 (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.