Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaston de Blondeville


 * 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. Punkmorten 06:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Gaston de Blondeville
Non-notable, poorly written ophan article. Expansion would be fine, but as it stands, it should be deleted. -Porlob 21:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * CSD A1, no context, or possibly G11, blatant spam. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh??? How is a stub on a 200-year-old novel spam? Fan-1967 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed G11 idea, but it's actually 180 years old, Fan-1967. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Check out google search Its a known novel by a highly regarded and eminently notable author, Ann Radcliffe.  Its a badly written stub article, but poor writing has no bearing on the subject's notability.  It needs a rewrite, not a delete.  --Jayron32 03:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note I was feeling inspired, so I did a major rewrite of the article. Referenced and everything.  Please reread the article.  It is stubby still, but it definately asserts its own notability now. --Jayron32 04:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep now, even though I'm the one that suggested deleting it. It's got enough "meat" to justify its existence now. -Porlob 11:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but more cleanup is still needed. "Is notable/noteworthy ..." formulations almost never belong in an article, and this has multiple such formulations in a single paragraph.  GRBerry 14:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * reply well, I never actually read the book. What I wrote is what 15 minutes on Google taught me.  Perhaps someone who has read it, or knows more about its historical context in the life and works of the author could expand on it.  --Jayron32 21:12, 16 October 2006 (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.