Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudders

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 rudder. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rudders[edit]

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

This is a WP:TWODABS page with a WP:PLURALPT kicker. I would propose that the clear primary topic in terms of long-term historical importance is the device for steering a ship. The other link on the page is itself a disambiguation page referring to an obscure use of the term. Delete this page, redirect the title, "Rudders" to "Rudder", and add the other use to the hatnote. bd2412 T 16:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per nom, although I don't see the need to delete the page before redirecting, a simple redirect will do per WP:ATD-R. I can find no evidence that "rudders" is an alternate use for a ship's logbook. No thesauri that I have consulted mention it, the logbook article doesn't mention it, and google searches give nothing but false positives on the first several pages. I'd say the use is so obscure or antiquated that a hatnote is unnecessary. 137.43.188.170 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect at least; I'd prefer to delete the page, as it's hard to believe that 'rudders' is a plausible search term, why wouldn't anyone just enter 'rudder' - indeed, anyone who is typing the plural form will reach the singular first, which will prove sufficient. As the IP editor above says, there's no justification for the plural. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would preserve the redirect - some vessels do have multiple rudders. bd2412 T 19:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They do, but that doesn't make the plural a useful search term: everyone can instantly see there's a singular without the -s, and even if they don't, they'll find the singular when typing the word in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, redirects are cheap (while unnecessary disambiguation pages are expensive, since their incoming links must be maintained). bd2412 T 19:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, so lesser of 2 evils maybe if delete isn't agreed, but it isn't an argument against the clearly preferable deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Rudder per nom. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to rudder. Is there any evidence whatsoever for a ships log being described as "rudders", as claimed here? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the first entry doesn't have an article or meet MOS:DABMENTION. The second entry is a valid redirect target. I could find no other entries to add. Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rudder. PamD 15:47, 29 October 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.