Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoyalNavy21

Useless, irrelevant stub - but that can change, so that's not the point. Point is, do we need these pages? Why not keep this to Royal Navy, where people are likely to actually find it? -- Jao 13:54, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Current content is irrelevant to the title, and not especially useful. If there were good information here, however, it would be findable because it was linked from an appropriate location in the Royal Navy article, or possibly in History of the Royal Navy, which doesn't yet exist but really ought to. Isomorphic 15:29, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Royal Navy, which already has a good section on its history. I think this content is a minor but good contribution and should be merged. So, move this article to History of the Royal Navy first, so the eventual result is that the history of this page is preserved under that name, and The Royal Navy in the 21st Century can then be listed in redirects for deletion. Certainly don't delete, despite being by an anon this article is part of a lot of good work by a newcomer on various Royal Navy articles. Andrewa 16:47, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged and redirected. Info about "the Royal Navy in the 21st Century" (that is to say, now) is exactly what I'd expect to see in the main article. The entire history of the Royal Navy can be moved out to its own article if/when necessary but I don't think it's necessary yet. Because it is now a harmless redirect, I do not recommend deletion .(This also preserves the anon contributions.) Rossami 17:22, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as redirect (change of vote, sort of). Certainly a lot simpler than what I proposed. Andrewa 20:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Original poster accepts this too. I don't see the use of this redirect, but there's no harm, either. -- Jao 08:13, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Keep redirect.Beelzebubs 20:39, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a good article -- Cabalamat 19:13, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]