Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (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   speedy delete. (WP:CSD) All the linked pages have been deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Dominant group (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log )



Procedural nomination. The page was nominated for deletion at Miscellany for deletion/Dominant group (disambiguation). Below is the discussion:



All of the disambiguated articles are up for deletion, and Dominant group was deleted. This is not a useful page as this is a non-existent topic, solely exists in the WP:SYNTH of a wikipedia user. Cerejota (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No opinion on the larger issue. However if we do end up with all of these "dominant groups" remaining, then we are going to need a disambiguation page. I think the more proper proposal would be to propose to delete the particular instances, not the disambiguation page. I created the disambiguation as a proper response to the proliferation. If the creation of the various dominant group pages was not appropriate, then that should reflect on them, not the disambiguation page.Greg Bard (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Conditional Delete - If at least eight of the articles are deleted, then there won't be any use for this page. However, until they are deleted, this page has a use. It should be kept as long as at least three of those articles remain.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 19:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

(end of copied discussion)

Cunard (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't imagine any of the articles mentioned on this AfD page surviving their deletion discussions, all of which are pending. Of course, this AfD should not be closed until the AfDs for the underlying articles have been closed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, procedurally I probably shouldn't be voting until the other AfDs are closed, but none of the articles have any chance of being kept, so this page will shortly be without a function. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have no imagination, so I'm stuck with what exists right now. There are articles with ambiguous titles, so a disambiguation page is needed. Either bundle this proposal with the other noms, or relist after the the other discussion has completed with the apparently foregone conclusion. This puts me in agreement with the other !voters, but really, this would be simpler as a db-disambig once the entries become red links. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with a db-disambig. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow delete. --Lambiam 15:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's already non-unanimous. No WP:SNOW here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as there are pages to disambiguate per above. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * delete - delete all these bits of silly original research. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:29, 8 September 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.