Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Gamma Omega (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Gamma Omega (disambiguation)

Delete Prod was removed, but no reason was given. There is only one valid entry, that at the primary page Alpha Gamma Omega. Making this page a redirect to the primary wouldn't help and may cause confusion. As for the other entries, I deleted one which didn't meet MOS:DABRL so there is only a see also to a similar name; if they genuinely could be confused, then a hatnote at Alpha Gamma Omega would suffice to disambiguate. Boleyn2 (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reason this seems to exist is that someone thought that "Alpha Gamma Omega" would somehow be confused with "Gamma Alpha Omega". I'm sorry, but that's just dumb. Mandsford (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either way Gamma Alpha Omega should be removed per WP:DISAMBIG and that leaves only two items. I don't have a problem with two-item disambig pages but they are unnecessary because of notes as the nominator suggests. Drawn Some (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford, unnecessary dab. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no ambiguous articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need to disambiguate the two blue links. If the red-linked article is written, hatnotes will suffice. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2009 (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.