Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Cardell Corbet


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 22:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Christian Cardell Corbet

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I nominate the biographical information on Canadian artist Christian Cardell Corbet for Deletion on Wikipedia due to recurring and unnecessary vandalism to the biography and subject by removal of worthy citations and harassment by known third parties contributing to Wikipedia. There is no point in maintaining and updating this biography if the subject is constantly being targeted by jealous and slanderous people who claim that the subject himself is actually editing this entry! I hereby kindly request that this biography on Christian Cardell Corbet be deleted at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Drchandler (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: the AFD was not transcluded onto the AFD log page until today. tedder (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Deletion on the basis of disruption within the article alone is the completely wrong way to respond to vandalism and disruption. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete / Keep /Unsure Certainly the nominator's reason for requesting deletion is entirely invalid however after reading the article I'm not sure that it meets WP:CREATIVE notability guidelines. Suggest that if there are any references for notability these be added to article. Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no reason for deletion given in the nomination. Keep unless the nominator can provide something under our guidelines for deletion that would qualify this for deletion. Having said that, the article needs to be sourced, and it appears that there are at least some sources available to do that. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Not the right way to respond to vandalism. Just semi-protect the article and move on, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  GraYoshi2x► talk 22:58, 7 October 2009 (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.