Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The O2 Dome


 * 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 merge. Incidentally, and I've said this too many times to count, you can merge on your own, you don't need to &mdash; indeed, you really shouldn't &mdash; use AFD.--SB | T 03:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The O2 Dome
Delete - duplicates, in an inferior manner, article Millennium Dome - also is invalid as title, as the building should be referred to either as 'The Millennium Dome' or as 'The O2' Smerus 11:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom ST47 13:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as possibly redundant. --Arnzy (whats up?)  14:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The nominator tells us that this is a duplicate article, with a non-official name. Given The Millenium Dome, Millenium dome, Millennium dome, The o2, and The O2, this variation appears plausible.  The solution is therefore to merge the duplicates.  AFD should not be involved.  Uncle G 14:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But there is nothing to merge - the candidate article for deletion is extremely poorSmerus 15:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That step #2 of article merger is short in this case doesn't change the process. Uncle G 15:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep then MergeEncyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Millennium Dome (which essentialy equals redirecting in this case). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect with/to Millennium Dome - Blood red sandman 14:59, 27 August 2006 (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.