Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solarus


 * 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 speedily deleted  by ; rationale was: ''G6: "disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title. Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance". Despite appearing valid, there is nothing being disambiguated as all entries are non-inclusions per WP:MOSDAB.'' Non-admin closure. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Solarus

 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  — France 3470   ( talk ) 23:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  — France 3470   ( talk ) 23:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This disambiguation article was PROD'd with the reasoning that "This is a disambiguation page that contains a red link and two WP:TRIVIA items. If the red link topic deserves an article, then it can be created separately. (Note that Solarus (disambiguation) points here.)" It was then de-PROD'd with the statement that "Declined prod -disambig pages are unsuited to Prods; take to WP:MISC". However, per WP:PROD, "Proposed deletion is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, and disambiguation pages;...". Hence, the PROD was proper.

Since I can not PROD it again, I am bringing it to WP:AfD for assessment. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A clear Delete upon further inspection. The artist doesn't exist and is not mentioned in the linked article and the supposed Sonic the Hedgehog deity links to a list which does not include the term. No other pages mention these usage either, which non-includes both items as they do not conform to MOS:DABMENTION. The TV episode is only a partial match, and also should not be included per WP:PTM. There is absolutely nothing to disambiguate and no reason for this page to exist. I am quite surprised the prod was declined, as it was entirely warranted. With a tiny bit of checking this case is pretty clear-cut. I would try a speedy under G6 with an expanded explanation of why all items are non-inclusions. France 3470   ( talk ) 23:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and tagged it for G6, as it clearly fits within the parameters of 'db-disambig', as it "disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title. Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance". France 3470   ( talk ) 01:17, 1 June 2011 (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.