Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 2

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Southeast Michigan Outbreak → 1997 Southeast Michigan tornado outbreak  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Currently redirects to 1997 southeast Michigan tornado outbreak, but lacks specificity -- outbreak of what? Chicken pox? COVID-19? Auto manufacturing? Existentialism? This is by no means the only outbreak that's ever happened in southeast Michigan. jp×g 20:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There should be no ambiguity whatsoever on the topic. The topic name should specify that it's a tornado outbreak. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ambiguous. A Google search shows the term referring to outbreaks of Hepatitis and Measles. We already have a Southeast Michigan tornado outbreak redirect. Jay (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2021 (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.

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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Astley's Ampitheatre → Astley's Amphitheatre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

deletion as its a misspelling that has been there for a long time, there is already a disambig set up today Financefactz (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep plausible misspelling. Polyamorph (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Old, unambiguous, and a plausible misspelling. Thanks to User:Polyamorph for tagging it as a {{r from misspelling}}. - Eureka Lott 09:11, 3 December 2021 (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.

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 Disability in India#Government policy. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Divyang → Disability  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a Hindi word, not mentioned at target. Apparently, its usage is controversial. There were three articles using the redirect, which I have reworded. There are other unlinked uses which should probably be reworded as well, but searching is complicated by people with this as a given name. As far as a better target, Disability in India#Government policy discusses the term specifically. MB 15:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Disability in India#Government policy where the term is discussed. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2021 (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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Mechanisms → Mechanism (band)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is the name of a different, completely unrelated band from Mechanism, and all of the links using this redirect have been mistaken links from The Mechanisms rather than the target. I'd make an article for the real The Mechanisms, but while they have an enthusiastic cult following I'm not sure if they're notable by Wikipedia's standards. Rusalkii (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• REtarget to Mechanism (disambiguation); fix all incoming links to The Mechanisms (band) redlink; a mention on the dab page for List of space pirates for the band can be added. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh, not a band I ever thought to see show up at RfD. I'm slightly biased here, perhaps, having quite liked the one album of theirs I listened to, Once Upon a Time in Space. But I think I can set that aside... /lh
  I see where IP65 is coming from, but I disagree. If they're notable enough to redlink, then they should be redlinked without disambiguator. Google results suggest (yes, even Incognito to avoid personalized results) that the main usage of "The Mechanisms" is in reference to the band, so this seems like it would be a WP:SMALLDETAILS situation, like Atlantic / The Atlantic. So either we should delete this per nom under REDLINK, or we should say that this band isn't notable and retarget to the DAB and unlink all backlinks. Looking at search results, I'm afraid I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but maybe I've missed something. Defaulting to retarget to DAB and un-backlink, but remain open to being convinced that there's article potential here (in which case I'd switch to !voting redlink). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If as Rusalkii stated, it isn't sufficiently notable, then the base name should point to the dab page. The redlink can serve to point to whatever other article the band ever appears in as a subtopic, if such were written. As it is, we could just point it to the space pirates list, instead of being a redlink. Or keep it as a redlink, waiting for such a more substantial overarching article to be written. Surely there should be a list of bands of X where a listentry could be built for it? Then the redlink could be converted to a redirect to that list. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the disambiguation page does not cover any topic called "The Mechanisms". The band is mentioned only in passing in various articles which would not be good targets either (e.g. Hereward the wake). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mechanism does not disambiguate "The Mechanisms". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't see anything at Mechanism that could be called "The Mechanisms". -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:46, 15 December 2021 (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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Third Geneva Convention (1929) → Geneva Convention (1929)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Third Geneva Convention from 1949 is an amendment to the one from 1929 and as such this redirect doesn't appear to make any sense. Lennart97 (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep When I moved the page I stated 15:16, 21 March 2006‎ PBS "moved Third Geneva Convention (1929) to Geneva Convention (1929): Not sure of the numbering" however AFAICT this redirect does no harm and it may help people when searching for Geneva Conventions that cover POWs etc because they are likely to search on "Third Geneva Convention" when looking for such information. "Redirects should be created to articles that may reasonably be searched for or linked to under two or more names" (WP:AT) -- PBS (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, people are likely to search for "Third Geneva Convention", but "Third Geneva Convention (1929)" specifically is not a very likely search term. If people do search for it, are they looking for the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War (1929) or for the Third Geneva Convention? Just letting them see the search results, which show both, seems more helpful than taking them to one or the other. Lennart97 (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per observation about the search results being more helpful. Seems to agree with the first reason listed under WP:R#DELETE. The second reason also applies: in this case Geneva Convention (1929) = Andrew B. Smith, Third Geneva Convention (1929) = Adam B. Smith, and Third Geneva Convention = Adam Smith. The only reason under WP:R#KEEP is the one concerning some people finding it useful, but it would actually harm people who landed on that page if the search results would be more useful and the redirect itself confused them away from Third Geneva Convention. Knr5 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Knr5. Confusing and unlikely search term. It's better to let the search engine do its job. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:35, 15 December 2021 (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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 69420 → 69  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; mentions elsewhere on Wikipedia appear to be referring to postal codes. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obvious target is Tesla Model S, except that no one has added it there ([1]). MB 20:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The most prominent use on Wikipedia is APT-69420, other uses include postcodes in France and Texas, a slowly rotating minor planet, a Star Wars action figure's product code, an NER Class N locomotive and the SeaLifeBase taxon identifier for the Australian sea lion. The minor planet is the only one of these I think that would work as a redirect target, although the locomotive and hacking group would be fine on a disambig. Google adds the Tesla thing, a substring of Pi, the postcode for Kazlų Rūda, Lithuania, a song by non-notable band Lossheep, and an ordnance relating to a historic district in St. Louis, Missouri. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft disambig will help if there are varied usages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's also the INSEE code for Ampuis, France. Narky Blert (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've drafted a dab page if that is the result. That might be slightly better than deleting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 23:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- not even for numbered minor planets this type of "stand-alone number-only redirect" works. There is already a complete listing for all numbered minor planets (more than half a million, see LoMP). -- Rfassbind – talk 00:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as such, and turn it into a disambig page with possible uses/meanings. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't think there is enough of substance for a disambiguation. The INSEE code is tenuous (I'm seeing 69007?), the minor planet is a WP:PTM (it's a two part name), the hacker group also looks like a WP:PTM (I don't see any reference to the group as simply 69420, it's "Advanced Persistent Threat 69420" or "APT-69420"), and from there we are really getting into the obscure. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:XY. 49.48.147.206 (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2021 (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.