Deletion of Luis Miguel Romero Fernández

Comment: I don't see how an article based entirely on sources produced by the Catholic Church could meet the independent sourcing criteria for . This would be like allowing business publications by a corporation to source an article on that corporation. It just doesn't make sense
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This is a  pass, maybe not by much, because despite the quantity of sources provided in this AFD few qualify as independent SIGCOV, but there is enough. This is also a borderline  pass as mentioned above. I sympathize with the concerns raised by {{U|Elizium23}} above regarding the larger issues at play here. However, as they say in legal-speak, this case is a poor vehicle for modifying precedent. Suggest that the  concern be raised for this area at an appropriate central discussion forum instead
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:NPROF||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I think there's enough coverage here for  and not just an -based keep based on his new (or soon to be) bishop title. But also, re the  argument raised by Elizium23: As former head of UTPL he arguably also passes #C6, and (if one can find it amid the new-bishop news coverage) there's also news coverage of his role there, for instance https://lahora.com.ec/noticia/1000232596/ayer-se-procedic3b3-a-designar-una-nueva-directiva-de-la-ausenp-la-presidencia-recayc3b3-en-el-rector-de-la-utpl-luis-miguel-romero https://lahora.com.ec/noticia/1000065240/home https://lahora.com.ec/noticia/642771/home https://lahora.com.ec/noticia/994961/nuevas-autoridades-asumen-direccic3b3n-de-la-utpl
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:OUTCOMES||WP:BLP1E||WP:PROF)

Comment: Fails . The sources are too closely related to the subject. The very basic criteria for GNG is not met here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)