Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Carlson (ice hockey)

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. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Carlson (ice hockey)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NHOCKEY. The current page just redirected to list of draft picks from his draft class. –B2Project^(Talk) 16:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pitch) @ 14:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.–B2Project^(Talk) 14:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Firstly, as this is a redirect and was created as such, this belongs at WP:RFD, not here. Secondly, seems to me that this a near ideal example of a good use of a redirect. Redirects are cheap, and this is exactly why. Sometimes there's going to be terms that people might search for but aren't notable enough for a standalone article. So we create a redirect to a suitable target article. Which is what happened here. oknazevad (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I agree this probably belongs in RfD rather than here, Oknazevad's forgetting one key element: that redirects need to be plausible. This particular player turns out to have been an 11th round draft pick 27 years ago who played a couple undistinguished seasons of college hockey, and the odds that ANYone is going to search for him on Wikipedia are between zero and nil. Without even looking it up, I'd wager that this is another in a many hundreds-long string of implausible redirects created by a now-indeffed editor with a notorious case of edit-countitis. (edit: yep, it's another of Dolovis') Ravenswing 17:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup Ravenswing pretty much perfectly sums it up. -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect I see no harm is having this redirect to the Penguins draft pick page. Redirects are cheap, and this does seem like a plausible search term (yes, he was drafted in the 11th round, but there's the point - he was actually drafted by the Penguins, so in my mind, a redirect seems appropriate, since he won't ever have an actual article written about him). Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 04:37, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Except no one is ever going to search with a disambiguator on the name. -DJSasso (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible (disambiguated) redirect. (And, yes, this ideally should have been speedy-closed and sent to WP:RfD instead of relisted, Rcsprinter123.) ansh666 02:49, 30 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.