Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's Liberation Front (group)


 * 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. Sources appear to be insufficient for notability. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

People's Liberation Front (group)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to be a non-notable online protest group the only references that are not to the groups facebook page or website make no mention of the group. I already speedy deleted it once and retagged it upon its recreation only for the tag to be replaced with an underconstruction tag based on this promise of further refs, however I find it unlikely that any will be forthcoming, and still believe that this group meets csd:a7  Jac 16888  Talk 18:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as the de-speedier, I nevertheless agree, based on my own Google searches, that this group does not meant our notability requirements. The period of this AfD should give ample time for the article's defenders to find and add RS. And if they do, I'd reconsider. But I made a good faith effort to find them, and could not. I also wonder if there isn't a lot of wishful thinking and invention here, and have tagged it as a possible hoax, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also removed as it has been made redundant by this nomination. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nomination affects the future of the article? No. The closer of the nomination determines that. Anarchangel (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood me: I just meant that I'd placed an underconstruction tag to give the editor more time to add refs, but when the article was nominated for discussion, such a tag was unneeded, as the article cannot be speedied or PRODed during the AfD process, giving the editor sufficient time to try and improve article.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, an RS from Cnet has been found and added, with a prominent mention of the group. I'm sorry I missed that and am more convinced that I did the right thing by de-speedying. I've removed the hoax tag and have struck through my delete !vote. Let's see how this develops.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is now up to par, please remove the Afd tag. Also, here is another RS i will add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Dirty Watermelon (talk • contribs) 18:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)I'm sorry, prominent? The article is about a homeless bloke supposedly called "Commander X", the only mention of this group is in passing, "...was part of an online protest organized by the People's Liberation Front--also allegedly associated with Anonymous". That hardly makes them noteworthy. If anything these "reliable sources" are at best a suggestion that perhaps the "commander" could warrant an article, not the group-- Jac 16888 Talk 18:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that access to a cube is a prerequisite for notability is noted. Does having more houses make one more notable, though, and are we to require verification that Wikipedia subjects have houses? Anarchangel (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with you about Chris Doyon: I've added a news ref from the Orlando Sentinel about a series of attacks in Florida. I think some form of article should be remain, but perhaps as a bio article for Doyon rather than this alleged "group." The extend of the attacks would indicate that Doyon has earned a place in Category:People associated with computer security (which includes hackers). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that the Orlando incident has already been documented at Food_Not_Bombs, with a mention to Doyon there, too. This "homeless hacktivist" is notable, I'm convinced. But the group, no... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I argue that the group is notable for OpCIA, OpSyria, and their involvement with Anonymous. The article on Doyon would also go quite unexplained without an article about his group.A Dirty Watermelon (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it certain that Doyon is not the sole member of the People's Liberation Front? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * quite certain, I joined their irc (irc.iranserv.com/#plf) <= use a client) to make sure. While not large, they are notable. A Dirty Watermelon (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of IRC, you can check this. While many aren't active any more after the arrest of 'Commander X' the group DID have many members, and is worth keeping the article. A Dirty Watermelon (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that's my point: despite all the chat forum wannabees, moral supporters and what have you, was Commander X/Christopher Doyon/Homeless Hactivist the only who actually did anything? If so, then the article should be about him, imo, with this article repurposed as a WP:Redirect to his bio article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hardly. When X was arrested, the group went into hiding until new leaders were found. And They have been. What else is a hacking group but a few big players and some skids? Also, many people DID participat in their blackfax/ddos ops.A Dirty Watermelon (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Since a key point seems to be whether the organization is notable independent of Doyon, also tagging for:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And, given the criminal nature of activities:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Basically what we have here is an article about an internet group. The only references of any use are passing mentions in a couple of news articles about the groups alleged leader, "Commander X". These news article suggest that there is a slight chance Commander X is notable, however they focus on the single crime he apparently committed suggesting that he is a WP:BLP1E person and not really worthy of an article-- Jac 16888 Talk 16:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename if kept. I don't see how it helps distinguish this People's Liberation Front from any other People's Liberation Front to use the qualifier "(group}". All of them are groups. No opinion as to the keep/delete issue yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename if kept. Excellent point by Metro90. I don't have any opinion on whether this particular organization passes GNG, but I do strongly believe this is an improper name that needs to be changed to something indicative of WHICH People's Liberation Front "group" this is, if kept. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete with fire and storm: You have got to be kidding me. Some Hacker Guy claims to run a "liberation group," and based almost entirely on self-referential bits off of his own website, that's supposed to sustain an article?  This AfD has been up for two weeks now, and not only is that more than enough time to uncover multiple, reliable, independent sources discussing the subject in "significant detail", as the GNG enjoins us to do, an article cannot be sustained without them.  Not only are we not required to keep an article indefinitely just because of the fuzzy premise that such sources must be out there, somewhere, anywhere, we're required to delete an article which lacks them, and I'm unimpressed by the creator's assertions, backed by nary a shred of genuine proof.  It is not enough that the subject be mentioned in passing, as it is in the CNET article proffered as evidence of notability.  The subject must be discussed in "significant detail," and it is not, there or in any other reliable source.  It's defensible that an article might be sustained for this Chris Doyon, though he comes off more as a pathetic self-promoter than anything else, but that's another debate, and isn't pertinent here.  This fails WP:GNG and likely WP:BULLSHIT as well.  Ravenswing  09:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not established. Heavily reliant on primary sources and the other sources are not sufficiently mainstream to accurately establish notability. Pol430  talk to me 14:54, 20 January 2012 (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.