Jump to content

Talk:Formula Asia 2.0

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Delete?

[edit]

This page should be deleted because it is a minor series, only lasted for one year and is covered in the main Formula Renault page. Officially Mr X (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree only because 2008 Formula Renault seasons#2008 Formula Asia 2.0 season resume the season. So the more importants informations from this article have to be include in the season report. Links to the series have to be redirected to the season. - Rollof1 (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agree, let's do it then. transfer all relevant info to the Formula Renault page and the 2008 Formula Renault seasons page. Officially Mr X (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we going to delete this page or not? I don't want to seem completely useless but I've no idea how to go about it. For the reasons covered, all relevant information will go onto the main pages and this page is surpless to any use. DELETE Officially Mr X (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meger and redirect: Actually, there is no need to delete; the title would make a good redirect (note that there are several inbound links to it). But first someone knowledgeable has to merge the information into the relevant articles. It probably merits at lest its own heading within Formula Renault#Other formulas powered by Renault. -Arb. (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It really isn't as significant as you are making out and I think to delete would be the most sensible policy. The results from its one season are in 2008 Formula Renault seasons and there is a mention of it (which I will expand a little) at Formula Renault as you mentioned. Officially Mr X (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that we are here for the readers (well that's the theory). Keeping it as a redirect might occasionally help someone looking for information about the subject to get to the correct place. No harm in that, surely. -Arb. (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]