Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-52 bombers

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, I would have left the redirect but the title is plural and we already have a redirect at B-52 bomber (heaven alone knows how the creator managed to miss a target this big!) As the comments note, there is an existing article of substantially higher quality at B-52 Stratofortress and there is nothing new in this to merge. An open and shut case. Guy 12:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B-52 bombers[edit]

Delete Already exists in a much better form at B-52 Stratofortress. No salvageable contents. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom. Pan Dan 02:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom. B-52 Stratofortress is more than enough, and this may add some conent to it. Lost Knob 03:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect - it was probably a mistake by the author thinking that there existed no article on the B-52. - Richardcavell 04:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per nom. Author was probably just looking in the wrong places for the existing article. The Bethling 04:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't really a case where the user's feelings are a particular concern; the title offers nothing that wouldn't produce the correct article (if you're looking for an article on the B-52, you'll type "B-52", rather than just "Bomber" -- which links there anyway). Since this has no value as a redirect, it'd be better to delete it. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 08:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It seems like the author didn't read the article about the BUFF aka B-52 Stratofortress. Buckner 1986 05:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom --Richard 07:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the consensus seems to be re-direct so I was bold and did the redirect. Can someone close this AfD please? --Richard 07:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I just read the deletion guideline that says you're not supposed to redirect an article while it is in AfD. I reverted my bold edit. I think we are ready to close this debate, though. --Richard 08:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and as a useless redirect. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 08:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect they're cheap. -- Whpq 12:33, 6 September 2006 (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.