Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 25

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 25, 2012

Dipangkorn Rasmijoti Bridge

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 and tag with {{ R from incorrect name}}. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Misleading and confusing redirect. Was created due to a mention in an unreliable source that this would be the name of the bridge in question; however, it is not. Paul_012 ( talk) 17:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Being incorrect is not enough reason to delete, and if sources are using it, people are searching for this name (no matter how wrong it is). "Misleading and confusing" would be if there is some other bridge that actually does have this name. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 18:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and tag with {{ R from incorrect name}}. Someone might still be looking for the article with that name, and we should point them to the correct article instead of encouraging them to write a duplicate article, which is what a redlink does. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:56, 10 May 2012 (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.

Grasping at straws

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 soft-redirect to Wiktionary article w:grasp at straws ( non-admin closure). As nominator I feel this is a good solution, and I don't see this as a controversial result. If there is concern that this closure is too out-of-process anyone may re-open it. Equazcion (talk) 04:16, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

"Grasping at straws" is a phrase used to describe creating weak arguments to desperately advance one's position when one knows they've been beaten. It has little relation to "straw man" arguments, which mischaracterize an opponent's argument -- and are often used even when one's position is strong. The relation has been drawn purely because of the common word they share, but they are far from synonymous. Until an article can be created in its place, this redirect should be deleted. Equazcion (talk) 17:57, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete by creator of the redir (some 5 years ago); this isn't linked to from anywhere in article space at this point, and Equazcion is exactly correct that it's a very dubious target article to begin with. My bad! -- Kendrick7 talk 19:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I concur that the current target is not supportable. Maybe retarget to desperation? That seems better though maybe still not ideal. It does seem like the phrase ought to point somewhere. Delete only if no better target comes up by the end of the discussion period. Soft-redirect to Wiktionary using {{ wi}}. I see no potential that this phrase can every support an article beyond a mere dicdef. Rossami (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I suppose one could support an article at a later date were there any reliable real world controversy over the phrase's relation to straw man. I can support the soft-redirect insomuch as it is without prejudice to a later expansion based on WP:RS's. Given the holiness that deletion discussions are often anointed with on this project, I am once bitten, twice shy. ;) -- Kendrick7 talk 03:50, 26 April 2012 (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.

Scott Wilson (ice hockey)

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. Rossami's arguments for keeping this redirect are presusive. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Redirects to a simple list of players and doesn't give much more information that that. Possibly in the near future he could become notable. Would be better served being a red link at this point. DJSasso ( talk) 20:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Yeah it was created before he met WP:NHOCKEY. But he is pretty close to meeting it now so likely will be recreated in the near future. - DJSasso ( talk) 11:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: while nobody has explicitly argued against the deletion, I'd like to see a stronger consensus to overturn the AfD's consensus that he shouldn't have an article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 12:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the redirect. If/when he meets the notability criteria clearly enough to overcome the AfD decision, the redirect can be overwritten with article content - deletion of the pagehistory is not necessary. In the meantime, the redirect points readers to what little content we have on the persion and keeps the Talk page alive so those debating his notability have a place to hold their discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2012 (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.

Damián Fernández Beanato

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. - filelake shoe 14:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

This article was deleted twice ( 1 & 2) after this discussion and now the author created it again as a nonsense redirect. It should be deleted for good. PeterCantropus ( talk) 05:44, 25 April 2012 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_25&oldid=1144521068"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 25

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 25, 2012

Dipangkorn Rasmijoti Bridge

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 and tag with {{ R from incorrect name}}. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Misleading and confusing redirect. Was created due to a mention in an unreliable source that this would be the name of the bridge in question; however, it is not. Paul_012 ( talk) 17:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Being incorrect is not enough reason to delete, and if sources are using it, people are searching for this name (no matter how wrong it is). "Misleading and confusing" would be if there is some other bridge that actually does have this name. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 18:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and tag with {{ R from incorrect name}}. Someone might still be looking for the article with that name, and we should point them to the correct article instead of encouraging them to write a duplicate article, which is what a redlink does. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:56, 10 May 2012 (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.

Grasping at straws

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 soft-redirect to Wiktionary article w:grasp at straws ( non-admin closure). As nominator I feel this is a good solution, and I don't see this as a controversial result. If there is concern that this closure is too out-of-process anyone may re-open it. Equazcion (talk) 04:16, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

"Grasping at straws" is a phrase used to describe creating weak arguments to desperately advance one's position when one knows they've been beaten. It has little relation to "straw man" arguments, which mischaracterize an opponent's argument -- and are often used even when one's position is strong. The relation has been drawn purely because of the common word they share, but they are far from synonymous. Until an article can be created in its place, this redirect should be deleted. Equazcion (talk) 17:57, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete by creator of the redir (some 5 years ago); this isn't linked to from anywhere in article space at this point, and Equazcion is exactly correct that it's a very dubious target article to begin with. My bad! -- Kendrick7 talk 19:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I concur that the current target is not supportable. Maybe retarget to desperation? That seems better though maybe still not ideal. It does seem like the phrase ought to point somewhere. Delete only if no better target comes up by the end of the discussion period. Soft-redirect to Wiktionary using {{ wi}}. I see no potential that this phrase can every support an article beyond a mere dicdef. Rossami (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I suppose one could support an article at a later date were there any reliable real world controversy over the phrase's relation to straw man. I can support the soft-redirect insomuch as it is without prejudice to a later expansion based on WP:RS's. Given the holiness that deletion discussions are often anointed with on this project, I am once bitten, twice shy. ;) -- Kendrick7 talk 03:50, 26 April 2012 (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.

Scott Wilson (ice hockey)

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. Rossami's arguments for keeping this redirect are presusive. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Redirects to a simple list of players and doesn't give much more information that that. Possibly in the near future he could become notable. Would be better served being a red link at this point. DJSasso ( talk) 20:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Yeah it was created before he met WP:NHOCKEY. But he is pretty close to meeting it now so likely will be recreated in the near future. - DJSasso ( talk) 11:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: while nobody has explicitly argued against the deletion, I'd like to see a stronger consensus to overturn the AfD's consensus that he shouldn't have an article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 12:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the redirect. If/when he meets the notability criteria clearly enough to overcome the AfD decision, the redirect can be overwritten with article content - deletion of the pagehistory is not necessary. In the meantime, the redirect points readers to what little content we have on the persion and keeps the Talk page alive so those debating his notability have a place to hold their discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2012 (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.

Damián Fernández Beanato

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. - filelake shoe 14:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

This article was deleted twice ( 1 & 2) after this discussion and now the author created it again as a nonsense redirect. It should be deleted for good. PeterCantropus ( talk) 05:44, 25 April 2012 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_25&oldid=1144521068"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE