- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Episode 16
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Episode 16 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is only one article this name and the other is just a redirect link. Does not meet G14 as it links to (or should I say, disambiguates) two articles JuniperChill ( talk) 12:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill ( talk) 12:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as bizarre disambiguation page. Almost kind of funny but definitely should be deleted. Dan • ✉ 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 18 April 2024 (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.
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Episode 16
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Episode 16 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is only one article this name and the other is just a redirect link. Does not meet G14 as it links to (or should I say, disambiguates) two articles JuniperChill ( talk) 12:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill ( talk) 12:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as bizarre disambiguation page. Almost kind of funny but definitely should be deleted. Dan • ✉ 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 18 April 2024 (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.