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. Consensus is that some other organizational structure may be preferable in the future, but no to deletion at this time.--Kubigula (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

809 in poetry[edit]

Only one death...and that's it. The template is 92% of the content of the page. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all "years in poetry", not sure any year in poetry is notable. --neon white talk 22:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Any year is notable if notable things happened in it. Its a useful way of organizing material. that said, for stretches of years where the events are far between in a given field, a larger degree of aggregation would be a reasonable editorial decision. DGG (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ina greement with DGG, and note that wikipedia's coverage of literature from that era is likely to be very incomplete, so there may be possibilities for additional information -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, doesn't really do any harm, if we're going to have any "year in poetry" articles there's no reason not to have this one; and if we're not going to have any - well, that's a discussion for another place. --Stormie (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all we have to do is expand it.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 03:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.