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. / Withdrawn - Clearly wasting my time, Once the article's deleted we'll have a useless disambiguation which sure as hell won't be my problem (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 12:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young Actors Theatre[edit]

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

According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deletion I can list disambiguations here, Anyway the disambiguation had 2 entries however one entry is at AFD which leaves only 1 left, The page is only getting 1 or 2 views every few days and as one entry is gone there's no need for this page (unless there's other Theatre Schools), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and if 2nd article is deleted (AfD is headed that way, but it isn't closed yet so this is premature), then the one remaining article of this name could be moved using {db-move} - no need for AfD, and that's if the Islington article is deleted and no other entries are found. Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is there's so many twats on here that revert anything and everything so figured It'd be much easier just to go along this route and get consensus first, If consensus is to keep and db-move this then I'll happily do that however I'd rather get consensus first instead of moving it and having someone revert, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: perfectly valid dab page, now that I have replaced the prematurely-removed Islington article. While that page exists, it needs to be linked from the dab page. If it is deleted at AfD, then the link on the dab page should be removed, and the dab page should then be redirected to the Florida setup (or that one moved to the base name). But this AfD is absurdly premature and it was very poor editing to remove the Islington article before the end of the AfD. PamD 12:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PamD - You do realize the article is going to be deleted so reinstating it is just wasting time and rather WP:POINTY? ...... If there was any inkling of this article being kept I wouldn't of removed it so early however as it's going to be deleted I see no point sitting around waiting ........ –Davey2010^Talk 12:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 You do realise it was completely inappropriate to prejudge the outcome of the AfD and remove a link to an existing page? Just be slightly patient and let things happen in the right order. PamD 12:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the point in wasting time but screw it once the article's deleted we'll have a useless disambiguation won't we. –Davey2010^Talk 12:38, 2 August 2016 (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.