Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Javier Larrazabal De Tarlac


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Francis Javier Larrazabal De Tarlac

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Author claims this person to be a saint, but I can't find any evidence for that. He is not mentioned anywhere on the internet under name "Javier Larrazabal De Tarlac" or "Francis Javier Larrazabal". Vanjagenije (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  21:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as a test page, or an unredeemable mess, or as something unverifiable.  From this edit, it appears the creator of the article wanted to create an article for a proposed saint, by cutting and pasting something from an uncited source (at my college, we call that plagiarism, but here we call it WP:COPYVIO).  Then he edited it down into the current mess. I can't verify any part of it, but the subject may have been a mix-up with either (a) a person known as Sister Aiello, who was beatified (declared blessed) in September 2011, or (b) Crescencia Pérez, who likewise was beatified 17 November 2012, or (c) one of the "companions" of another saint. Any which way, this is such a wreck it should be deleted. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. At best, it's a completely unsourced biography of a contemporary person, and at worst, it's a hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: the earliest version of the article, noted by Bearian to be a copied from somewhere, is indeed a copy-paste from José María of Manila. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 04:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that research! If anybody can fix this mess, I would do along with keeping it. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keeping it? I actually think it is a hoax. I was only explaining the copy-paste. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 15:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be understandable if someone copied another article to help them put together the structure of a new article, although if they do that, they should preferably do so in their userspace. More importantly, the editor needs to replace the old article with accurate, verifiable content. This has not been done in this case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: a hoax. A contemporary Christian martyr with a known date of birth, but missing the date of death? הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 15:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm just assuming it's an honest mistake, or in legalese, negligence. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * According to this edit by the same editor, the subject allegedly died in 2010. Of course, no evidence has been provided that the subject was ever declared a saint ... or was martyred ... or died under any circumstances ... or ever was alive in the first place. And if he had been alive, he would have lived his entire life since the World Wide Web was invented (born in 1991), so there ought to be evidence of his existence if he was real, or at least if he was notable. So I believe the editor has exhausted their reserve of good faith. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as seems to be completely made up!. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Total lack of sources. This would be a clear BLP violation, except it seems to claim the person is dead, but even that is unclear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.