Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yves Chaudron
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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The result was speedy keep; nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yves Chaudron
- Yves Chaudron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article with possibly no notability
talk) 01:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - per WP:ARTIST points 1 and 3, simply of the basis of his significant works of art - 6 carbon copies of the Mona Lisa impressive enough to fool a bunch of people and sell for $300k a piece (in 1911; millions in today's money). Stalwart111 06:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Should not have been tagged for deletion, just cleanup; which has been well-done.talk) 13:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing the nomination per my Talk Page discussion. For a topic this important/interesting, it's definitely surprising that both the English and the French articles would be stubs, which led me to consider the possiblity that the article was a hoax or an urban legend created by sub-par sources. I no longer think that this article should be deleted — Preceding talk • contribs) 6 June 2013
- 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.