Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1695 in poetry


 * 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 delete under criterion WP:CSD, as lacking meaningful content. If anyone wants to create a redirect or to establish an actual article there, that is, of course, perfectly acceptable. Somebody must have written some notable poetry then. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

1695 in poetry

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Why do we need an empty article? — Chris Capoccia T&#8260;C 13:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete lack of content. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect Currently, the "years in poetry" are redirects to the equivalents in "years in literature". This should simply be redirected to 1695 in literature which does have content.  I agree that red links should not (and don't need to) be turned blue until there's something to say. Mandsford (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete (A3) — No content. There are also a LOT of other articles (i.e. 1691, 1692, 1693, etc) that are exactly the same. MuZemike (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an obvious speedy delete. I just wanted to comment that I love the implication that absolutely no decent poetry came out of 1695. -Verdatum (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2008 (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.