Deletion of Queen of Bollywood

Comment: The article has been improved quite a bit, and I believe the provided sources establish the use of the term in each case.  states: ''The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is '''verifiability, not truth'''''; this means that with the addition of |reliable sources, we have passed that criterion. The article also passes  for the same reason- the use of reliable sources. The article maintains a |neutral point of view as well. There's the question of whether there even is a definition of QoB; I don't see this as a problem for creating an article on the term (see Killer application for example). I think the article needs ''improvement'' not ''deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: I'm glad that you want the improve wikipedia B.Wind, I welcome you to improve this site but you need also to read  ,  and learn about writing from a neutral viewpoint. What I didn't like about the nature of the discussion is that you didn't assume good faith, particularly on my part once I became aware you weren't a newbie. From a neutral viewpoint "Queen of Bollywood" is a name created by fans. A whole page devoted to it is fan cruft at best. Whether we are all fans of Bollywood or not and this is mentioned in national newspapers, this encyclopedia should be written neutrally and avoid labelling people with POV comments like that. Besides this I have no idea why you think a dab page is necessary for what is only a loose label given in the media. If people want to find the actresses then they type in the names or search categories as simple as that. Such a page is highly problematic and people will begin listing their favourite actresses who they believe are the "Queen". Having a dab page on such a fan label, sends out a totally wrong message about this site
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:UNDUE||WP:OR)

Comment: simply because there are so many 'Queens of Bollywood' must surely imply there isn't an 'acknowledged' one. That being the case, this would be no more than marketing hyperbole, or a mere personal opinion of a journalist - either way, it falls foul of . It won't be long before devotees of one actress or another comes and adds their own  as to why so and so is the undisputed Queen
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:OR)

Comment: Use of the phrase, while established, does not mean that the phrase is worthy of either an article or a dab page.  For an article, there must be sources that talk about the phrase, not merely use it.  I see none.  For a dab page, this seems to fail the "Deciding to disambiguate" guideline on .  In other words, no one would go to the "Queen of Bollywood" article expecting to see one of these other articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:DAB)

Comment: Now that an award of that name from a notable organisation has been shown to exist,  it strengthens no end the argument for '''keep'''. Its existence arguably demolishes all allegations of failing   in the namespace. However, I've noted a number of uses of the 'title' with the word 'queen' not capitalised - let's not forget to clearly point out the generic nature of the term
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)