Deletion of Perfect rhyme

Comment: and probably merge to Rhyme where most of the information already seems to be covered. If there is significant scope to expand the article (which from this discussion I think is debatable) then a separate article can be |split off. Whilst I think the current article is not just a #DICT|dictionary definition until there is additional information to present there is no need to send readers off to a separate article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS||WP:NOT)

Comment: Then why do we even have a  guideline, or at least why does the guideline discuss unexpandable subjects? Saying that it's "amazing" that someone thinks a subject can't be expanded is a lack of imagination. I'll give you an example, "pinky fingernail". It's definitely a notable subject, almost everyone has one. Yet does it deserve its own article, is there enough to say about a "pinky fingernail" that's encyclopedic? Of course not. In any case, I don't think an AfD page is a place to debate the merits of a guideline, we're here to discuss the merits of this article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: You stated, "My reading of wp:AFD (ie: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.) says this isn't a good candidate for AFD, as we have explained how to fix it." If you read AfD again, notice that it is for ''discussion'' of whether an article should be deleted or not. Among the valid deletion criteria are articles not suitable for an encyclopedia, and it links the  policy. On , you will see among the various examples DICDEF (it's almost the first example). This article appears to me (and others as you can see) to be a violation of the  policy, and so it's very appropriate to bring to AfD to discuss whether it should be deleted or not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOTDICDEF||WP:NOT)