Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 31

March 31
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 31, 2011

User:GreyMatterEchoUKfan/userboxes/User rabbish



 * 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * → User:GreyMatterEchoUKfan/userboxes/User bw-1 (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Unused redirect, unlikely search term; nothing links to here Green Giant (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. Just exactly what benefit do you think there is to deleting a redirect that is internal to another user's userspace? Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It documents a pagemove. It might count as a user-test but it's in the user-space, an area where we encourage exactly this kind of test.  Keep because no reason to delete has been even suggested.  Unlinked is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect and "unlikely search term" only applies to redirects created as redirects, not to those serving other purposes.  Rossami (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The "user-test" was more than two years ago, if the user intended to do something with it they would have, seeing as they edited right up to last month. Thryduulf, if we keep it, what benefit is there to Wikipedia? This redirect is a page-move and nothing more; there is no other internal link to this redirect; nor is the name of this redirect likely to be used as a search term by an uninformed reader or any user here. It does not fit into any of the recommended uses for userpages at WP:UPYES. What you are defending here is effectively Wiki-litter, dumped by a now-retired user without any potential benefit to Wikipedia. Green Giant (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because our developers have explicitly told us that redirects are cheap - so cheap that the act of cleaning them up actually does slightly more harm than the benefit of "cleaning" them. Think of it this way - we get no server space back, we get no bandwidth back, we get no reduction in the effort or time of any volunteer from deleting a harmless but "unnecessary" redirect.  All we do is 1) waste some time discussing it and then 2) add a few records to the database. The cost of a redirect is so trivial that any justifiable use is sufficient.  User tests are one value - we want new users to learn how to use MediaWiki more effectively and some of those users may want to leave their test around as a reminder for how they did it.  Or they may see some other value to it that is not obvious to you or I because we navigate the wiki differently.  The point the developers were trying to make is that the act of making the decision - the validation that it was a user test, that the test was so old that there is no longer any value, that the user won't ever come back, etc. takes time.  It takes the nominator to research and several other editors to validate.  That effort far outweighs the theoretical benefit of deleting an unharmful redirect especially when there is actually a slight incremental cost to deleting it. There may be almost no benefit to keeping the redirect but there is even less benefit to deleting it.  Without a showing of harm or confusion, why should we pay even that tiny cost?  Rossami (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Extra time (workplace)



 * 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 (non-admin closure). Acather96 (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * → Overtime (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Procedural nomination on behalf of, who prodded the talk page. Bringing it here because apparently redirects can't be prodded. Nomination rationale was "This article serves no purpose. I have already set it up as a redirect to "Overtime", because the material there is identical. But I now realize that even the redirect is unnecessary, as there are no articles actually linking to this page, with the single exception of a hatnote. These ("article" and talk page) need to go."

For my part, I am neutral. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep because it helps to document a disputed split, movement and re-merger of content. Redirects such as this are an easy way to ensure the preservation of GFDL.  The fact that the page is now a near-orphan is irrelevant.  As we have often noted before, in an ideal world, all redirects would be orphans.  Rossami (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems reasonable to assume that some readers would search for "Extra time" when they're actually looking for what we call "overtime", so offering this in the search box is a good idea. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's Friday, Friday, got to get down on Friday. Everybody's looking forward to the weekend.



 * 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 All. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Joint nominating, with the same rationale:
 * → Friday (Rebecca Black song) (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Friday (Rebecca Black song)
 * → Friday (Rebecca Black song)
 * → Friday (Rebecca Black song)
 * → Friday (Rebecca Black song)
 * → Friday (Rebecca Black song)
 * → Friday (Rebecca Black song)
 * → Friday (Rebecca Black song)
 * → Friday (Rebecca Black song)
 * → Friday (Rebecca Black song)

While Wikipedia may document some of the more popular memes, it is inappropriate for it to actively indulge in their perpetuation. CIreland (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Delete on April 2? ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all except Fun, Fun, Fun which is not a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, sorry, missed that Fun, Fun, Fun was not a redirect. Removed that one now. CIreland (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Commnet isn't this a copyright violation by using so many lyrics from the song? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, My Hand Is a Dolphin is not a lyric in the song, it comes from the Brock's Dub parody. (And of course, Delete, though i chuckled at these.)--Milowent • talkblp-r  01:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)