Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laureano Márquez


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Laureano Márquez

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article does not establish notability V. Joe (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Another editor, Malcolmxl5 (talk • contribs • count ), has added references and expanded the article, and notability now seems clear. - Eastmain (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, sources used in the article would appear to indicate notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per new sources in article, sufficient to establish notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only content is that he was fined, and this is WP:NOTNEWS and the story had no lasting effects, and not reported on by the broad media. That aside it fails WP:BLP on almost every level. Mkdw talk 00:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, per Lankiveil. DewiMorgan (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability seems clear. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is very obvious to anyone fluent in Spanish language who has had the chance to read, watch, or hear Mr. Márquez. The article, if given enough time, will very probably grow to sufficient dimensions attesting his notability --but only if left alone (that is, not destroyed) by someone with dubious motives. In other words, is Wikipedia an universal encyclopedia, or just a national reference at the service of U.S. values alone? --AVM (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2010 (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.