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 Masters of Evil. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Supercharger (comics) → List of Marvel Comics characters: S#Supercharger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No corresponding list entry Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It was redirected to the link in question until @Namenamenamenamename: purged it alongside the other characters that had less than 20 appearances. Perhaps it's link there can be restored or it's original page can be restored. Anyone agreeing with my suggestions? --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Masters of Evil, which mentions the character. I don't think restoring the entry on the list is justified. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Either the List of Masters of Evil members page or redirect it to a section in the List of Spider-Man enemies page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Masters of Evil. The "List of" article is really a subtopic, and offers no more context. There's a little bit of context at List of Spider-Man enemies, so I could live with that, but it does make clear that the character originated elsewhere. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 24 October 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) 17:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Halloweentown 5: She's the Witch → Halloweentown (film series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Halloweentown V: She's the Witch → Halloweentown (film series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nothing at target mentions this, this film does not exist and no indication that it ever will. Likely hoax. See related at Halloweentown: She's the Witch Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not certain that this is a hoax, but it does appear to be little more than a rumour. PC78 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (WP:G3) – It's a hoax: if this were really happening, there would be coverage about it. There's no coverage, so it's a hoax. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's enough noise online to cast doubt on it being a hoax. The earliest mention I can find is from 2006, it's not hard to believe that a fifth film was at least mooted at some point. PC78 (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a fifth film may have been discussed at some point doesn't justify a redirect, especially as there's not one WP:RS mention, and there's nothing to confirm that this was even the title. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 11:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say it did, hence my delete !vote, only that this doesn't make it a hoax. PC78 (talk) 12:05, 14 October 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 to Ford CE14 platform. I must have missed the infobox when researching this. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ford Erika Platform → Ford Motor Company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure if this was actually a platform. It's not listed as such in List of Ford platforms. There was an article by this name, but it looks to be covered by Ford CE14 platform (but no Erika listed there). I found a little bit of information about "Erika" at Ford Escort (Europe)#Third generation (1980–1986), but not as a platform. For what it's worth, Ford Erika doesn't even exist (yet). -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Ford CE14 platform, where it is actually mentioned in the infobox. Between that and "Erika" being given as a code name for one of the corresponding vehicle models, this seems benign. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 23 October 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 to Tamar. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• TAMAR → Psychological trauma  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's no indication of why this redirects here. I suggest delete because of confusion with Tamar. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This points to its current target because it previously pointed to TAMAR Education Project, which was WP:BLARed in 2017 for reasons unknown. Given that Tamar already includes a link to Projeto TAMAR, this appears to be an ambiguous term. I suggest retargeting this back to Tamar, its original target. - Eureka Lott 23:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to DAB page Tamar. Normal practice when an all-caps or other-case version is ambiguous; I see these all the time while DABfixing. It's a plausible search term, and WP:CHEAP. Tag as ((R from other capitalisation)). Narky Blert (talk) 02:29, 14 October 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) 17:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cinema Blend → MovieWeb  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The edit summary from when this was created says that Cinema Blend is a division of MovieWeb, but from having checked both of these websites I don't see any evidence that this is the case. It seems that they're owned by two different parent companies, Gateway Blend and Watchr, respectively. I would suggest deletion unless evidence can be provided that these websites are related. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Would I redirect Maya to 3ds Max because Autodesk makes both? No. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. An article about Cinema Blend or Gateway Blend could be drafted though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:41, 15 October 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 since justification has been provided and sourced at the target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ruan Eugene Stik → Ryan Stack  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target's middle name is Eugene, but I don't see any evidence that they've ever been referred to as "Stik". Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Looks like a pronunciation-switching prank to me: the [ah] sound from "Stack" is switch with the [yeh] sound in "Ryan". flowing dreams (talk page) 11:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This looked like a routine deletion to me, so I was surprised to see some incoming links. Since this discussion began, the redirect's creator added sourced information that the player has gone by Ruan Stik in Macedonia. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 23 October 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 to Globalism#Arguments against. (non-admin closure) Politrukki (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Anti-globalism → Anti-globalization movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Globalism and globalisation are quite different things. This could be retargeted to Globalism#Arguments against, but it might also be argued that keeping this in any form is potentially confusing. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Globalism#Arguments against. "Anti-globalism" refers unambiguously to globalism. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 05:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Fiamh. This subject is described in far more detail at that article. Geolodus (talk) 09:04, 14 October 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 no consensus, but retarget to W5, given that no one supports the status quo. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wwwww → Five Ws  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm pretty sure someone searching for literally 5 W's isn't looking for the Five W's. There's not any other place I can think of to redirect this page. Invalid^OS (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I only see a phrase called "which was what we wanted" but that's only in dictionary. Five W's does hatnote to the W5 disambiguation which has the wiktionary entry for that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If we can't think of anything else this might refer to then it seems pretty harmless. And I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that someone might use this as a search term. PC78 (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to W5 as ambiguous (see also its use as Q.E.D. – ie what AngusWOOF said). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Five Ws" and "W5" are separate terms, I don't see how "WWWWW" or "wwwww" could be substituted for either. JIP | Talk 07:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, redirects are cheap, but this is borderline patent nonsense. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to W5. This is plausible for both Five W's and Q.E.D. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It is patent nonsense, or very close to it. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to W5 per Tavix and others since Five W's is listed there. I don't see how this is "nonsense". PC78 (talk) 08:02, 19 October 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) 17:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DQw4w9WgXcQ → Rickrolling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a procedural nomination. The redirect was tagged for WP:G1 and WP:G3 by Rosguill and deleted by RHaworth but challenged by RoySmith on the grounds that the title is a YouTube ID, specifically https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ - which takes you to the official Never Gonna Give You Up video that has been the target of Rickrolls for years. I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – no usage history here on Wikipedia, and an internet search would suggest that other than an Urban Dictionary entry (and matches for articles literally linking the whole URL) this isn't used as a way to refer to rickrolling. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure I'd categorize my objection as strongly as challenged, but I did observe that as something that has a subreddit devoted to it, and an entry in Urban Dictionary, it's probably not that unlikely a search term. And it's not really WP:G1 or WP:G3 either. The current redirect to Rickrolling is a little confusing because the string isn't mentioned in the target article, but that can be fixed. So, since we're here, Keep per WP:CHEAP, with the proviso that a (very short) mention of the string be included in the target article. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the speedy criteria don't apply in hindsight. At the time, I thought this was a totally random string itself intended as a rickroll. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, google trends shows this is used as a search term about 10% as often as rickroll. Not huge, but not nothing either. I'm totally mystified (and somewhat amused) at the fact that only people in New York and California seem to search for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per point 8 of WP:RFD#DELETE, this is a rather obscure search string even though its target is unambiguous, and it will not help anyone except those who search by copying and pasting. I find no evidence that this ID is particularly significant—these IDs are not commonly known or referred to—and I will note that even the most viewed YouTube videos don't have such redirects. ComplexRational (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: JNQXAC9IVRw apparently exists for Me at the zoo. Should that be nominated? Geolodus (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Do we have some way to access the wikipedia search history to see how often that's actually used? My own googling turns up less for that than for DQw4w9WgXcQ, but what really matters is how often people use it to search on wikipedia. On the other hand, WP:CHEAP. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: The only numerical evidence is pageviews, showing 17 in the past year and suggesting not-too-common usage of this redirect. ComplexRational (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Of course, we don't want redirects for every YouTube code, but as RoySmith points out this one does have uses outside YouTube and I'd say therefore is a special case (as jNQXAC9IVRw might be too). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete LOL! I had to chuckle at the nom's comment on the reason for why the PROD was challenged. Are there any Wikipedia articles for YouTube videos with associated redirects for the YouTube ID? If there are, perhaps we need to do some clean up... Doug Mehus (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus:. I can find 3. There's this one, jNQXAC9IVRw mentioned above, and from redirects to members of Category:2010s YouTube videos and Category:2000s YouTube videos there's _OBlgSz8sSM. Even allowing for a lack of categorization, it's not really a problem. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per RoySmith, who has provided evidence of usage. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Did someone let the cat on the keyboard? Because that's what it looks like to me. As such, it is an unlikely search term. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is very close to being patent nonsense. While [1] does link to Never Gonna Give You Up on YouTube, the URL clearly isn't intended to be memorized by a human being, and looks like nonsense at first glance. Invalid^OS (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We aren't the YouTube Wikia. Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 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 restore. If the redirect is "wrong", restoring the article resolves that issue. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Darussalam Islamic Academy → Darul Huda Islamic University  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wrong redirection. Kutyava (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore previous version, and tag for improvement (or AfD), instead of blanking and redirecting to an article without mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Kutyava: Why is it wrong? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:48, 19 October 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) Politrukki (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DHIU → Darul Huda Islamic University  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wrong redirection. Kutyava (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not ambiguous with anything else. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If there's another thing called DHIU it could be converted to disambiguation later. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 09:34, 14 October 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) 16:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Heaven on he 7th Floor → Heaven on the 7th Floor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible typo that is too old for WP:R3. While "he" is a real word, the meaning does not work for this example, as "he" is used to refer to a previously mentioned male person (the corresponding pronoun for females is of course "she"). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Improbable and unnecessary redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as implausible. This is no more likely than any other typo, and misspelling "the" seems especially unlikely. ComplexRational (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Let the search engine take over. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, Richhoncho, ComplexRational, flowing dreams and AngusWOOF. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 October 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.