Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brouillards


 * 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The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Brouillards

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

This is way too short to be worth anything here, IMHO. I think that it is best to integrate this material into the main article on the Debussy Preludes. I am going to nominate the other Debussy individual Preludes stubs for deletion as well, when I have a chance to get to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJRafe (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Please use the afd2 template when creating discussions, and remember to sign your comments. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC) *Comment An article being short is not a reason for deletion. The proposed merge would, if all the elements of the Preludes were written up become potentially unwieldy.  I think the question that needs to be answered is if there is sufficient information for there  to be a spinout article like this Fritzpoll (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If the nominator is proposing a mass merge, the best method is to use the merge templates -- this is "Articles for Deletion" not "Articles for Merging." That said, per editorial policy, being short is not a problem in itself. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - per above, the nominator has not shown grounds for deletion. Being short is not a deletion reaso. It may not even be grounds for merging - there the question is not "is there only a little here", but "can more be written to make this a valid article". The answer to the latter question, in this case, is almost certainly "yes". For that reason, I'd be weakly against a merger. Grutness...wha?  00:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; we have a quorum. No changes, same with the others, will leave alone. DJRafe (talk) 02:45, 30 March 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.