Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 9

March 9
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 9, 2011

Someone please kill me



 * 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) 22:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


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

Weird and useless. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - This does not look like a plausible search term/phrase in my opinion. -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk ) 21:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete-As much as part of me says the history here ought be preserved just because of the age (2004!) it really ought to be deleted.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment this could be repurposed as an R from misnomer to The Wedding Singer (musical) because of the song "Somebody Kill Me Please" in that musical... 184.144.163.245 (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Either of the above.AerobicFox (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete It's not likely anyone is going to look for this, and even if they do nor would they expect to land on the Euthanasia page. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  00:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as an implausible search term. Hmmm... perhaps a very weak retarget to The Wedding Singer (musical) since "Someone" and "Somebody" is quite different. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 06:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold On to Strings Better Left to Fray



 * 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 17:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * → Holding On to Strings Better Left to Fray (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Moving here from AfD. Original deletion rationale by User:Zlau92 was "According to several sources and the official website of this band, the title of this Album is "Holding on to Strings Better Left To Fray". This redirect isn't very useful and should be deprecated." Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep to preserve a very messy (and recent) pagehistory. This article was originally created at "Holding...", moved to "Hold..." a few weeks ago without explanation, then immediately recreated at the original title.  A cite on both Talk pages documents "Holding..." as the correct title.  One page was turned into a redirect to resolve the fork.  That is an appropriate use of a redirect.  History-merge is possible but unwarranted in my opinion.  Rossami (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Theterribletwins1111



 * 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. Should have gone with SoCal's idea in the first place. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  01:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Renamed user, no longer any need for these. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  07:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * → User:Spitfire (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → User:Spitfire/monobook.js (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → User talk:Spitfire (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * How is there no longer any need for these? More than that, how are any of these redirects harmful or confusing?  On the contrary, they seem helpful for editors who need to track back from a user's contribution to his/her new username.  Keep unless there is an actual reason to delete.  Rossami (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. They've updated the way the renaming process works so that both the user-contribution history and the page-history are now updated.  That's a significant improvement to the process.  However, the username is apparently not updated where it was used to sign comments.  See for example here or here.  Rossami (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I do not see how those redirects are confusing or harmful. It's acceptable for a renamed user to recreate his/her former account and make appropriate redirects to guard against impersonation. -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk ) 19:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Although the redirects (which were automatically created by the renaming process) aren't technically confusing or harmful, I just realized that the old user account has never been recreated, and the renaming process took place over 2 years ago. In my opinion, that's more than enough time for other users to get acquainted with the new username. Also, all of the contributions that the user had made under the old username can be found in the contribution history of the new username. -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk ) 20:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: As a courtesy, I have notified User:Spitfire of this discussion. -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk )
 * Strong keep. These are important for tracking contribution histories. That the old user account has not been recreated is no reason to delete this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Although CSD U2 does indicate that redirects from the old userspace to the new userspace should be retained even if the old account is not recreated, the policy doesn't explicitly state that such redirects should be retained forever; it only states that they should be kept for a reasonable time. What exactly is considered a "reasonable time" in this case? With that said, if anyone believes that 2 years is too short to be considered "reasonable", I will be happy to change my !vote. -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk ) 19:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the renaming process does not change Talk page signatures, I'm inclined to think that the wording of U2 is incorrect and should be updated to "indefinite unless the user is exercising his/her right to vanish or another user claims the ID." Rossami (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep created the account as a WP:DOP, probably should have done that a while ago, but I didn't want to have to go to the hassle of running multiple accounts. Thanks to SoCalSuperEagle for notifying me of this discussion. TeleComNasSprVen, a quick talk page notice asking me to create the account/discuss the matter would have been more useful. ;) Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 03:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hereby change my !vote to keep per the above. -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk ) 05:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Elfin MR8



 * 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 17:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * → Elfin Sports Cars (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete. Just a redirect back to the parent company article whihc makes no mention of the car other than it existed and a number were built. Falcadore (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. Redirects from unnotable products to the (more notable) company that makes them are an established and accepted use.  It helps readers who want what little information we have and quietly preempts the creation of content that probably wouldn't meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria.  With only three of these cars ever built, I'm don't see that WP:REDLINK applies.  Rossami (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rossami. Redirects like these both help users find the information they are looking for and subtly discourage the creation of articles about specifics that are not notable on their own. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

2012 Japanese Grand Prix



 * 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 17:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * → 2012 Formula One season (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete WP:CBALL mainly. This event is about 20 months into the future and is not the next Japanese Grand Prix, the 2011 event has yet to be run. Too early for even a redirect. Falcadore (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment As it already redirects to the 2012 season article, I don't see any harm in having it... 65.93.13.129 (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Too early for an article, certainly, but not for a redirect to the season article. The reference in the target article shows that the circuit has signed a contract to host the grand prix up to and including the 2012 event, so that the race will happen is not speculation. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The event is scheduled to happen, and the redirect will be turned into an article eventually. No point deleting it for the sake of deletion. Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)