Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abomination (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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Abomination (disambiguation)
Delete; it's redundant now that the main page for abomination is the disambiguation page Pitr 03:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup, delete unnecessary/useless pages. However, since the vast majority of the edits to Abomination referred to the Biblical meaning, it probably should have been moved to Abomination (Bible), with the redir converted into the disamb page. Now an admin would have to merge the histories to get the edit contents connected back with the edit history entries--maybe refer to Requested moves if no one does it from seeing it here? Regforafd 03:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah I sort of made a mess because I realized halfway through what I should've done from the beginning. What's the easiest way to clean this up? Pitr 08:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all articles, and restart from beginning --SockpuppetSamuelson 14:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we definitely shouldn't delete all the articles. The main problem is the issue of keeping the edit histories in the right place, which would be lost if we started from scratch. Pitr 17:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to delete everything--it would probably be a GFDL vioalation anyway. All that needs to happen is have an admin merge the appropriate histories and get rid of the useless stuff left over--that's why that functionalality was added to the software. Regforafd 19:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So how do we notify an admin and get them to clean it up? Pitr 19:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Duplicate of abomination and therefore unneeded. &#9678;DanMS 16:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - redundant Barneyboo (Talk) 17:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no need for deletion, or requested moves, or history merger. There is no need for an administrator to do anything.  Non-administrators can easily fix this themselves.  Just redirect abomination (disambiguation) to abomination.  This will allow you to use the otheruses2 template, which requires an "X (disambiguation)" article, on the disambiguated articles, should you want to.  This simple redirection mechanism is commonly employed in equal-weight disambiguations that use &#123;&#123;otheruses2&#125;&#125;. Uncle G 23:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This should be no-brainer for any admin and not to take time here. Pavel Vozenilek 21:42, 9 December 2005 (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.