Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CO2 (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. TravellingCari 04:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

CO2 (disambiguation)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Disambig contains link to only one article (Carbon dioxide), as well as one red link. "CO2" already redirects to Carbon dioxide, therefore this disambig page is not needed. – Dream out loud (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant dab. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The second link on the page is advertising only - and it's red. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Beeswaxcandle. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Generally speaking Wikipedia doesn't allow two-item dismabiguation pages anyway, and if the second one here is just an ad, then this one can go. 23skidoo (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed with the above, there's no need for this page. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, if there's ever a significant enough CO2 that it warrants an article, we can just use hatnotes. Two-piece disambiguation pages are useful (for example, Agua Dulce, Texas), but only if the two articles are of relatively equal importance, as is seen with Agua Dulce.  Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - not needed at this time Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:04, 3 October 2008 (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.