Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Torres

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. czar 06:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Torres[edit]

[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)

Not seeing notability here, a before search only found a brief piece in Entomology Today, which lacks depth and doesn't really show him to be notable. Doesn't appear to pass PROF either. Not to be confused with the (also not notable) philosopher who dominates scholar results. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am leaning towards delete, as the general coverage about him is very scarce and of poor quality. He undoubtedly fails WP:PROF. PK650 (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable YouTuber. Clear failure of WP:SIGCOV. 193.116.232.210 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only claim of notability is for published research in biology, but with only two publications in Google Scholar with 11 and 3 citations respectively he falls far short of WP:PROF#C1. Instead, notability as a YouTuber would require WP:GNG-type in-depth independent coverage of his YouTube career, which we do not have. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2021 (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.