Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 10, 2013

C.D. Maxaquene (basketball)[edit]

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo, very unlikely that anyone would end with '(basketball)' Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 21:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep or better still write an article. C.D. Maxaquene is a football, basketball and handball club, and so someone looking for information about the basketball side of things is very likely to use a search term such as this. Unfortunately only the introduction mentions the basketball and handball activities, with the rest of the article treating it like a football only club. Until such time as we have an article or section about the basketball team though this remains the best target for the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. C.D. Maxaquene is a unique article name, a disambiguation wouldn't be required to separate football from basketball from handball. Re. the redirect, it serves no more usage that a redirect for "C.D. Maxaquene (handball)" would. Charon123able (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Having some in depth information about the club (being also one of the main authors of the more comprehensive version on WP:DE) I can say, that separate articles for the basketball and/or handball divisions would be pretty thin: there is not much information around at all (and I speak Portuguese). It is generally pretty difficult to document Moçambiquan sports without access to printed newspapers. The WWW is still very much in its infancy there. What will do, as I get to it, is expanding the article with the sections for other sports, including the widely popular there roller hockey. Cheers, and thank you for advising me of this discussion. Oalexander-En (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2013 (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.

Usanism[edit]

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a made-up term. MZMcBride (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, this has existed since 2004 and does occasionally get more than background noise levels of hits, but only just. Way down on page 4 of a google search I am seeing some actual use of the word, but to mean "Americanism" in the sense of American English colloquialisms rather anything to do with racial segregation. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a sense this means Americanism "USA-n-ism" being USA+connector"n"+-ism -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Down around page 6 of my google search I start seeing hits for "USAnism" meaning "words used in the USA as opposed to British usage". Book hits are extremely few and seem to be either typos or errors in Google's pattern-matching. It's not hard to surmise that the many supposed dictionary hits for this are copied from us, so getting rid of this is the best approach unless someone can come up with some solid examples of usage. Mangoe (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the term may "exist", I haven't found any reliable references (albeit with a quick google search) to verify it's existence. Furthermore Mangoe's "words used in the USA as opposed to British usage" would have Racial segregation as a very unlikely target for the redirect anyway. Charon123able (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be derogatory, if very subtle. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2013 (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.

Savages (album)[edit]

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 Retarget to Breathe Carolina discography#Studio albums ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect, which appears to have been created as some sort of a placeholder. The disambiguated title is not a plausible search term, so the redirect is un-needed BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Breathe Carolina discography#Studio albums. I'm not entirely sure why you think "Savages (album)" is an implausible search term for an album named "Savages" as it seems precisely the opposite to me. The redirect can be overwritten by an article when the album is released, if it is notable enough for a standalone article but unless and until it is, a redirect to the discography is exactly what we want. The target should possibly have a hatnote to Savage (album) (and vice versa), but it should not be retargetted there. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or retarget to "Breathe Carolina discography#Studio albums" ) - Per this article, "Appropriate redirects from the subject's name and entries in disambiguation pages should be created to help readers find such information." "Savages (album)" appears in the search box options once "Savages" is typed in. Additionally, redirects are cheap. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2013 (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.

Mike Dyball[edit]

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these redirects. Both are very obscure musicians who rarely turn up in music press (I have done the research to know this). It is not likely people come here to Wikipedia to look either of them up, just the band Priestess. LazyBastardGuy 23:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both. Both redirects get lots of hits (~30 and ~50 in February for example) indicating that people do come to Wikipedia to look them up. Both are former articles and have existed for many years meaning there is a high likelihood of both external links and of information having been merged into the band article. Finally redirects from the names people only notable in the context of an event/organisation/group/etc to the article about that notable topic is actively encouraged (see WP:BLP1E and similar). Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd hardly consider double digits to be "lots of hits," but Thryduulf is right on the merits of the redirects. Redirection from band members to bands is very common and helpful to readers. Compare to, for example, Honus Honus or Spicy McHaggis. Disclaimer: I created the former, so it just happened to be one I knew of offhand. --BDD (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_10&oldid=1138578575"