Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Corbin Bleu


 * 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. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Corbin Bleu
This article was PROD because "Very unmemorable quotes." The tag was removed without explanation, which brings it here. — Ningauble 15:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 16:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 15:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not thrilled with the quotes but the article has been here for over three years unquestioned.--Ole.Holm 17:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. And just because a page has been unquestioned for three years does not mean it is worthy of staying - it just means it escaped notice until now. The content still leaves a lot to be desired. ~ UDScott 19:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, after Kalki's improvements. ~ UDScott 01:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are sourced quotes of the person on the page, and though most might be of low interest to most others, some of them seem worth keeping. I might trim them, or add to them in the next week or so, but just because the content might presently leave a lot to be desired, and the page in need of some format cleanup, doesn't mean the page should simply be deleted. I might not be interested in this person, and most others here might not be, but if someone is, and he's famous enough to have a Wikipedia article, the page shouldn't be deleted simply because the majority of people involved in axing articles here don't at this point find the thing interesting. The whole attitude of deleting a page of other people's work, which might be improved or salvaged by just a minimal bit of work, and requiring anyone who is further interesting a person or a subject of valid interest to go elsewhere or start anew, is something that makes NO SENSE AT ALL to me. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 20:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Pointless, poorly written article, messy page, spammy, fails Manuel of style, nothing memorial or notable on the page, violates both Limit of quotes and blocking policy.(StarWarsFanBoy 21:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I just cleaned up the article. Many people consider many things pointless, and many people pointless, — I choose NOT to do so. I will concede that I do consider citing rather imaginary "policies" that don't seem to apply to anything at all in regard to this page rather pointless. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 21:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep now Kalki has cleaned it up. I've reverted to his version as the IP who made most of the recent edits reverted to an earlier version (including removing the VfD tag).--Ole.Holm 23:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Extremely weak keep. Good job salvaging, but still not a particularly "quotable" person - just notable enough for someone somewhere to care what he has had to say. BD2412 T 04:17, 7 December 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.