Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BNS Khalid Bin Walid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to BNS Bangabandhu. (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 00:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BNS Khalid Bin Walid[edit]

BNS Khalid Bin Walid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There ship was commissioned as BNS Khalid Bin Walid in 2007 but in 2009, it was renamed as BNS Bangabandhu. Wikipedia has a well-described page named BNS Bangabandhu. At present there is no ship with this name and it may misguide people.Sf-000 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BNS Khalid Bin Walid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sf-000 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From the nominator's info, I'd say it is not an AfD but the article should be redirected to BNS Bangabandhu. – nafSadh did say 00:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. This article started out as a redirect to BNS Bangabandhu from a page move. A separate article was recreated. Redirecting from a former name seems to be the logical approach. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: per Gene's comment, a redirect makes the most sense I believe. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per Gene93k, seems a sensible approach to me. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2014 (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.