Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larray

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. Sandstein 18:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larray

[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)

Subject of article is a very non notable internet “YouTube & Tiktok star” who doesn’t have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG. Subject also falls short of WP:ENT, WP:BASIC & WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any coverage in RS. Citrivescence (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reason as Citrivescence. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable YouTuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the are sources about this person, but they are of a trivial Gen Z nature, e.g. "Larray has x followers" or "Larray is 21 years old and is a part of Hype House". There is simply no claim to notability, nor is there SIGCOV to justify a biography. PK650 (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete this has all the hallmarks of paid for spam - including several fake black hat seo sources. Praxidicae (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2020 (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.