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. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OBlgSz8sSM → Charlie Bit My Finger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per the consensus at two closely related RfDs (including my original comments there): Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 13#DQw4w9WgXcQ and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 18#JNQXAC9IVRw. ComplexRational (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Housekeeping and the particular code is not notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've reverted the addition of a speedy deletion tag as that's not really appropriate at this time. That having been said, delete per nom. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Supposedly prior RfD and AfD decisions are not precedent-setting, so that's not a deletion reason; however, for the reasons expressed previously, this is a highly implausible typo as well. I would support a mass-deletion request if someone wants to work on that. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: The main reason I linked the previous discussions is because they include all the reasons presented by different editors for deletion; it keeps a short rationale instead of reiterating everything. Also, Shhhnotsoloud mentioned in the October 13 RfD that this was one of only three such redirects (the other two were deleted as a result of the linked discussions). If you find any more, though, feel free to include them in this discussion; the same rationale applies unless there are exceptional qualities suggesting that they are not merely (obscure) IDs. ComplexRational (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: Fair enough, and I figured that's why you included the previous discussion afterward, so people could assess the previous reasons given. I agree with deleting; who the heck is going to search by YouTube video database ID? ;-) --Doug Mehus T·C 01:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No one even notices or remembers, let alone searches for, the YouTube codes for videos. JIP | Talk 09:00, 9 December 2019 (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. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sonic the Hedgehog(character) → Sonic the Hedgehog (character)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Classic WP:RDAB issue. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete it is a plausible typo; however, there's no real attribution history worth preserving. I am fine with deletion. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Seems like a typo. If truly intentional and not an accident, I think that editors are more likely to make this mistake when typing than readers are since it uses parentheses. And we should probably shouldn't encourage editors to make typos. I do enough of that already. Red links can be a nice indicator that your fingers have failed you. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 14:47, 10 December 2019 (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 procedural close. These are now articles. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• NorthSideBenji → List of musicians from Ontario  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Puffy L'z → List of musicians from Ontario  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Generally, these sorts of lists only list entries who are themselves notable enough to merit an article. Of these two redirects, Puffy L'z is mentioned but does not have an article on Wikipedia, and NorthSideBenji is not mentioned at all. I would suggest deletion, and if this is the consensus then we should remove mention of Puffy L'z from the list as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected them as I was going to create the pages later, I have created the page for NorthSideBenji and will do so for Puffy L'z eventually.TwinTurbo (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest tagging ((R with possibilities)) on these if they are in draft form, so then they won't get put up for RFD, but since that's too late it won't really matter if kept or deleted as eventually the draft article will be submitted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:18, 6 December 2019 (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. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Orion CEV → Crew Exploration Vehicle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Orion CEV refers to the early version of the Orion spacecraft, which is greatly described in the Orion (spacecraft) article. Besides, Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle redirects to the "Orion (spacecraft)". So I propose to retarget the "Orion CEV" to "Orion (spacecraft)". --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 16:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Orion (spacecraft) as above. Hatnote for CEV itself exists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:41, 6 December 2019 (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) feminist (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Juan Mera (footballer) → Juan Mera González  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unnecessary page  S A H A  14:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the redirect is plausible. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 16:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply unnecessary, since Juan Mera González is the full name, and no point of keeping this.  S A H A  17:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 10:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep entirely standard and plausible redirect, particularly given that 'Juan Mera' is his COMMONNAME. Article probably needs moving to there actually. GiantSnowman 10:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have just noticed that the page was originally located at 'Juan Mera (footballer)' before the nominator attempted a copy and paste move (now reversed). GiantSnowman 10:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and as GiantSnowman said the page definitely needs moved back to its original title. I would also point @Arnabsaha2212: to WP:COMMONNAME – we don't necessarily use someone's full name in the title, that rationale for moving the page and/or deleting this redirect they created is incorrect. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2019 (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 and salt. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Shaunak Chakraborty → Poetry Chain  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Technically this doesn't meet the WP:G4 criterion as it is a WP:REDIRECT. Note that the mainspace article has been deleted twice:

• Closed 3 October 2018: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaunak Chakraborty
• Closed 3 February 2019: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaunak Chakraborty (2nd nomination)

Rationale for deletion of redirect: there is no plausible evidence that the subject of the twice-deleted article is related to the topic it redirects to. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Whether they are connected or not, they are not mentioned so the redirect is misleading. He is currently mentioned at Gopi Kottoor#Joined Indian Writers Association but I'm not convinced of the relevance to that article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is clearly an attempt to circumvent the fact that this article has been through two AfDs and both times has been unequivocal decision to delete. There is no clear connection to the redirected article. Dan arndt (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete tons of promotional sock puppetry going on related to the subject. Not clear if there will ever be a legit article on this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:45, 6 December 2019 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• GRAND ILLUSION (1938) → La Grande Illusion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The film was released in 1937, and I can't see a particular reason for all-caps. I can't explain why it gets ~30 page views per month. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is no encyclopedic or stylistic reason for this redirect to exist. It shows up in Google search, which is probably what attracts redirects. It also shows up in the Wikipedia search box and maybe readers just click on it. Part of the problem is that the film is known under two titles (Grand Illusion and La Grande Illusion) and it resides at the latter title, which doesn't show up in the search box if you search on the former. A MOS-compliant equivalent exists at Grand Illusion (film) but that also doesn't show up in the Wikipedia search box. Can anyone explain why GRAND ILLUSION (1938) shows up and Grand Illusion (film) does not? Betty Logan (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am currently reading about the 2001/02 - ASTON VILLA v EVERTON - FA YOUTH CUP FINAL. This link to ebay (Match programme) uses that title in The uppercase. Upper case cut & pastes from various websites is one possibilty for the existence of 30 hits per month. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2019 (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.