Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 19

November 19
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 19, 2009

List of British Army Ships
The result of the discussion was retarget to the category suggestion. Ideally this will be turned into an actual list though. Wizardman 05:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → List of British Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank (links to redirect)

This redirect is inappropriate as the target article (recently converted from a list to an article and moved to Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank) only refers to a specific type of vessel, and does not encompass all ships operated or utilised by the British Army. I have been unable to locate an appropriate target for this redirect. -- saberwyn 06:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit redirect to List of ship names of the Royal Navy, perhaps? Agree that the current destination is incredibly inappropriate, but I think I know what the intent was. Different countries separate affiliation of their naval vessels, others don't, and most I have no clue of. The United states has had several lines of ships that were built directly assigned to the US Army List of ships of the United States Army, but these are purpose-built. A few of this ship type in this class were at one time transferred to the British Army for. They were not built for or of the British Army, and there's no evidence anywhere that any still exist and have zero affiliation of the Navy and only that of the Army. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Well those are the only ships currently in Category:Ships of the British Army and its subcategories. So, are there or have there been any others? If not, the current target is not that inappropriate although the redirect is of questionable vale and can also be deleted. If there are others, it can be expanded to a list, but deleting it, won't impede that either. Alternatively, one could expand it already now to a small to a list that for start only inludes a link to the Mark 8 ones and can then be edited or renamed further. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Owner of microsoft
The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → Microsoft (links to redirect)

Not plausible redirect. "microsoft" is lowercase & I don't believe anyone would be looking for the "Owner of Microsoft". Founder would be the more appropriate term, but this redirect doesn't help much. Also, this page was created as a possible hoax, as the founder was a NN person that has nothing to do with the founding of MS. Netalarm   talk  04:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I thought Bill Gates and Paul Allen were the co-owners of the company? That's what I have always believed anyway.  ArcAngel (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Yup. But this hoax claimed it was some "Michael" that founded the company. Netalarm   talk  04:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I recommend deletion. It serves no purpose and should have been deleted when it was still a hoax. Mabeenot (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Mabeenot. As an article, it was a blatant and obvious hoax (CSD G3) and copy-paste of a portion of the article Microsoft. As a redirect, it just does not seem to be useful or needed. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 00:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Due to technical limitations of redirects only having a single target, this redirect implicitly relies upon the premise that there is a single owner. Instead Microsoft, like all publicly traded companies, is owned by its shareholders.  With over 8.9 billion shares outstanding, there is a large and highly dynamic list of owners that can be expected to change any day either the NASDAQ or Hong Kong Stock Exchange (exchanges where the corporation is listed) are open for trading. --Allen3 talk 03:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)