User talk:Salon D'Merde

Speedy deletion of Reflectionalism
A tag has been placed on Reflectionalism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Menti  fisto  05:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Reflectionalism
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Reflectionalism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted the article. If you believe it is notable and not original research, you can recreate it or ask for it to be undeleted at deletion review. However, please be prepared to expand the article considerably and explain the use of this term (which appears to be a neologism) in the literature, citing sources specifically. Rigadoun (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)