Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 January 29

January 29
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 29, 2012

Team Lotus (current)



 * 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 no consensus.  Nor do I find a clear consensus to retarget.  Recommend a Talk page discussion to see if a better destination page can be found.  Rossami (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * → Team Lotus (2010–11) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

There is no team that is currently called "Team Lotus", the redirect is now unneeded and potentially misleading. QueenCake (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. DH85868993 (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to the current team named "Lotus", Lotus F1, thus a highly plausible alternate name or misnomer. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the strict legal restrictions on the use of the name to prevent that team being known as Team Lotus (it is Lotus F1 team, never the other way around), it is not plausible that anyone would search for a term with Parentheses. QueenCake (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, if you know that wikipedia uses parenthetical disambiguation, then it is quite plausible that someone would try it. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or retarget to Team Lotus unless another Team Lotus becomes current. The IP's rationale is pretty valid, so I see no sense in deleting this to get it re-created in, say, 2013. Living redirects are cheaper then those deleted anyway. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It should definitely not be retargeted to Team Lotus (= the original "Team Lotus") which ceased operation in 1994. The redirect only exists because Team Lotus (2010–11) used to be called Team Lotus (current), that name specifically having been chosen to distinguish it from the original Team Lotus. DH85868993 (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that. Still, Team Lotus is likely to be the first place to go for an editor committing information about future Team Lotus, so, while it currently doesn't seem logical, it might make more sense then the other options discussed. See, after redirecting the Team Lotus (current) to any more current location no one would ever remember to fix it if the new Team Lotus would be created, say, in 2014. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand that point. It sounds to me you are arguing that it should be kept on the possibility of a new Team Lotus coming along one day, which is awfully Crystal Bally, especially with the restrictions on using the term. In the event of a new "Team Lotus" it could always be recreated, or not as we would hopefully have a better name next time around. I'm still advocating deletion. QueenCake (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep at first I though it seemed like an implausible redirect, but checking the article stats shows that its getting a fair number of hits between 20 and 40 a day in January, and into the 100's in december. Happy to follow others on where it should be targeted.--Salix (talk): 21:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Until January 21, there were about 20 internal links from articles to Team Lotus (current), which I replaced in preparation for the precursor to this discussion at WP:F1. And there were about 60 links from user talk pages, which I removed on January 30, by replacing the links in three WP:F1 newsletters. So I suspect that most of the hits in December and January were as a result of readers following internal links, rather than typing "Team Lotus (current)" into the search box or an external search engine. And I'd suggest that many/most of the hits since January 30 would be from people participating in this discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

List of software license violations



 * 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 speedy close because the discussion is now ongoing at AfD; the rfd tag disappeared when the page was restored and it doesn't make sense to have two concurrent discussions. NAC.  N  Y  Kevin  @122, i.e. 01:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * → Copyright infringement (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This former article was apparently blanked (rather than deleted) and then turned into a redirect (reason given: Terrible article: unproperly sourced, possibly libelous, based on original reaserch and self-published sources. Sorry, but bold claims require strong sources, and we have none of that ). This page to be deleted redirects to Copyright infringement, which is a discussion of that general topic, and not of software violations.  S ENATOR 2029  talk   16:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unblank and list at AfD. There hasn't been any discussion of the merits of the original article, and RfD is a poor substitute for that.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @858, i.e. 19:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * List at Afd per User:NYKevin. Yeah, extra bureaucracy but I think this should pass through formal channels. I don't want redirecting poor articles to be a precedent against bringing it up to Afd. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 06:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This is now listed for deletion at Articles for deletion/List of software license violations --SF007 (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

Mr. Bean's Christmas Vacation



 * 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. Lenticel  ( talk ) 01:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * → Rowan Atkinson (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Non-existent film, probably a hoax. See User talk:TBrandley for comments on similar edits. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GOOGLE  (note that WM doesn't handle the link correctly). If Google has exactly one non-wikipedia result, I think we can safely assume it doesn't exist.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @862, i.e. 19:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WM handles it if it's properly escaped: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mr.+Bean's+Christmas+Vacation%22+-site:wikipedia.org. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to find and research about Mr. Bean's Christmas Vacation but I couldn't find anything, so I agree, I think its a hoax. It might be a movie though.--TBrandley (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Then why did you make 6 posts about it on WP? SMH  Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as useless. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.