Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantasy Britney Spears

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 8 "deletes", 3 "keep as is", 2 "redirect" and 4 "merge". I note, however that all four of the "merge" opinions came before rob's comment about the merge and the copyvio finding. I confirm his finding that the copyvio is still in the article's history. I also note that this article is an orphan which seems to contradict the claim that this is a "notable product".

Given the copyvio, I am going to exercise my discretion and call this one as a "delete" decision. Rossami (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Fantasy Britney Spears
Tagged for speedy as an "advert" but isn't pure spam so isn't a speedy. Abstain. -Splash 04:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Britney Spears, note similar new page Curious Britney Spears, already redirected there (it was essentially contentless, unlike this one). Also note that these are some bad page titles. Bunchofgrapes 04:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as above - a couple of sentences worth keeping. It reads just like a commercial at the moment. Tyrenius 04:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - the Britney Spears page says "Following the success of "Curious", Spears released the scent "Fantasy" in September 2005." I think that's quite enough. TheMadBaron 04:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Britney Spears. – AxSkov ( ☏ ) 07:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge Britney Spears gren グレン 09:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable perfume. Kappa 09:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Simply mentioning she came out with a perfume, doesn't require a merge. It's something editors can do (and I guess have done), without using content here, which has no value.  The last para is copyvio from mass e-mail, so deleting the whole article, with edit history, is probably good.  Also, the normal GFDL requirement to keep the source of text used in a merge, doesn't apply, since all useful information comes from the Britney's e-mail sent out and her web site, which is copyrighted, and not licensed under GFDL.  --rob 10:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Britneycruft. / Peter Isotalo 13:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete still looks like an ad to me. I put the original speedy on it. CambridgeBayWeather 13:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as an ad. This deserves one line under Britney Spears--which it already has! No need to merge. Owen&times;  &#9742;  16:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Britney-cruft. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant, waste of an article. Voice of All  (talk)  21:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Duplicate material, and here I thought the article was going to be about a home game like Rotisserie League Poptart. Geogre 23:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Important product. OmegaWikipedia 23:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect, no need to merge already there. Looks like spam, smells like spam, quacks like spam. With the added bonus that you click on the link in the hope that Britteny is being all dirty or something. Even if it wasn't an ad or a besotted fan's word for word transcription of the marketing gumph, no need for breakout into it's own article. Sabine's Sunbird 23:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect, no merge. It has lush grey pork shoulder, tender pink ground ham, tangy salt, luscious sweet sugar, and exotic sodium nitrite. It even has a hint of pure, fresh water in it. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect from this bad title, in agreement with rob and Owen. When I saw the title, I expected this would be an AfD about a porn website.  Geogre's game would have been more interesting.  Barno 22:38, 12 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.