Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good looking

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 no consensus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good looking

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Not required as a dab page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't vote again since you nominated the page for deletion... —Eekerz ^(t) 06:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the nominator can !vote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the entries on this page are appropriate disambiguations per WP:DISAMBIG (and particularly WP:DABNOT). - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an approriate disambig page. Could be better served with a seealso template. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 07:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like Retain (disambiguation), this dab is not just for "good looking" but also "looking good". Unlike the retain dab, there are not as many articles but there are still 3 which, according to WP:DAB, is enough to create a dab for. —Eekerz ^(t) 10:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I just found there's an Australian TV series on the Nine Network called Looking Good Deborah Hutton used to host and be a consultant on, so now that's 4 articles/links that need dabbing... —Eekerz ^(t) 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good Looking[1] is also a movie slated for 2012, and there are several other TV series named Good Looking, according to IMDB; plus a book by Barbara Maria Stafford and 5 others with "Good Looking" as the main name of the book, according to Google Books (and many more with "Looking Good" as the main name)--and I bet even more with "Good Lookin'" and "Lookin' Good"--and that's just books! So there is clearly lots of potential for a "Good Looking" et al dab page here on Wikipedia... —Eekerz ^(t) 13:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eekerz. If this also covers Looking Good as well as Good Looking, then that changes things a bit. I think we should do some cleanup, though - why have two lists? But the page meets our criteria for a proper disambiguation page. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no ambiguous articles. At some future time if there is a need for the disambiguation page (that is, until after the ambiguous articles possibly spurred by the Google searches above are created), then a disambiguation page could be created, but future Wikipedia is allowed and expected to take care of itself. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no ambiguous articles. &dorno rocks. (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2010 (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.