Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Seven (disambiguation)


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Chicago Seven (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unnecessary disambiguation page as the primary topic, Chicago Seven, already has the remaining two entries as hatnotes. No incoming links to this dab page. —Bagumba (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The hatnote is not present in all disambiguations. And there are at least 4 articles in this disambiguation (forgot to add Chicago 7 (film)). ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's hatnotes at Chicago Seven and Chicago VII. Chicago Seven (architects) is not ambiguous, and it does not need hatnotes. Chicago 7 (film), which is also not ambiguous, is actually a redirect to The Trial of the Chicago 7.—Bagumba (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This a valid disambiguation page with no reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ... with no reason to delete.: The dab is not linked anywhere. Per guideline Disambiguation: If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly ... The existing hatnote is already short and does not benefit from a dab.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid disambiguation. The above quoted guideline does not preclude making disambiguation pages. Alternatively, the hatnotes can be removed and just link to the disambiguation page. Natg 19 (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fail to see how an orphan dab is useful. A bureaucratic keep merely due to no WP:BEANS rule?—Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2021 (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.