Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 24

July 24
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 24, 2012

Wikipedia:BLATHERSKITE



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * → Disruptive editing (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Blatherskite is defined as: A person who talks at great length without making much sense. Foolish talk; nonsense: "politicians get away all the time with their blatherskite".

Another redirect that is confrontational and against policy for being offensive. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   (WER) 23:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your points, Dennis. However, I feel that the entire section is really of a similar confrontational/negative nature. The other shortcuts are WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:IDHT, WP:HEAR, and WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Typically all of these are used in arguments by one editor to tell the other editor that they are being stubborn and unwilling to hear the other editor's points. While in some cases, that might be true, the essence of the comment is usually, 'I'm right because you aren't listening'. If we're going to have a section that essentially declares one editor is wrong rather than saying an editor simply needs to take time to listen for a bit, then I figure we might as well have a less confrontational-sounding word, like Blatherskite, simply because of its absurdity. Personally, I would prefer that all of these shortcuts get removed and replaced with WP:LISTEN because the positive way to address this is not to assume that the editor is wrong and you are right, but that the other editor might be better served to take a break from the argument and give more attention to the debate and listen more for a bit. -- Avanu (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2012 (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.

Air India's retired fleet



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * → Air India fleet (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

move relict with nothing linking here and empty history, unlikely typo Lumialover (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, harmless, documents page move. —Kusma (t·c) 12:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kusmat. The move happened in August 2009 and has caused no problems since. As the article was here before then too there is a possibility of incoming external links, and while the title is extremely unlikely as a typo it is a perfectly plausible search term. The page got 15 hits last month, which is above background noise, so people are using the redirect and deleting it would inconvenience them while producing no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep plausible search term.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:55, 25 July 2012 (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.

Steven Delisle



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 17:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * → List of Columbus Blue Jackets draft picks (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Propose deleting the redirect/player article of a ice hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. He biggest accomplishment was being drafted in the 4th round, until yesterday when he became a footnote in the Rick Nash trade. Otherwise, he's just a defensemen with a fledgling career in the lower minors. TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't advocate turning late round picks into redirects. But, as you say Delisle is a footnote in the Nash deal, since it was a five player deal there are four other player pages who are now linked to the player and 14 overall (excluding the redirect delete discussion and related pages). Player fails WP:NHOCKEY which only precludes him from having his own page as far as I know and not eliminating him as a redirect. Redirects are cheap and if a notable person comes along with the same name or player becomes notable the page can be moved/changed to suit the more notable person.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 14:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for the exact reason the the above wants to keep. Because this player is very likely to reach notability soon the redirect would be better served as a red link so that when he does become notable it will be obvious that the page needs creating. -DJSasso (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's mentioned at the target article. If/when someone writes an article about him, it can be written right over the redirect—deletion to make way for an article is unnecessary bureaucracy. In the mean time unless there's a better place to point this one, it should stay the way it is. BigNate37(T) 16:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yeah, he's mentioned somewhere in there. He is now also mentioned somewhere at 2012–13 NHL transactions. Should we link to that instead? You now have the choice of representing him by 1 of 2 single events in an otherwise not yet notable career. Are redlinks that bad? He's halfway to being notable by WP:NHOCKEY (50 pro games with a threshold of 100). I would rather see him redlink for now and then create him when he hits that threshold, rather then let him slip away unnoticed because he redirects to a vaguely related list of draft picks. TerminalPreppie (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He's mentioned and pictured. A quick Ctrl-F determines that. Perhaps we could place an anchor on the image and do a retarget as R to anchor? It's unorthodox, and we generally have no problem linking redirects to articles where the redirect subject isn't mentioned prominently, but if it's a genuine concern that the information is difficult to find, perhaps the anchor would help. BigNate37(T) 20:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Career stats: http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=96331 TerminalPreppie (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: An IP turned the redirect into an article, I have prod-ed it for failing NHockey, but I do not know how that will affect the current discussion on the redirect if the page is completely deleted. I'm going to post something on an admins page to see if I was in the right by prod-ing and if they can correct any potential mistakes.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He doesn't passWP:NHOCKEY and so the creation of the article was poor judgement, doubly so because of the ongoing RfD. I've reverted it back to the redirect; we're already discussing it here, let's not allow one instance of bad judgement to fragment or forestall the discussion about this title. BigNate37(T) 20:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 02:39, 25 July 2012 (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.