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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:N → Wikipedia:Notability  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The notability guideline isn’t part of/doesn’t seem to be related to the Manual of Style, so it doesn’t make sense to have this psuedo-namespace redirect. GMXping! 23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't seem related to the Manual of Style. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to where I expected it to point: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers or to the top of that page to match MOS:NUM. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with deleting the redirect. I don't agree with making it a redirect to the section in the manual of style for numbers as I don't think it's a sufficiently expected destination. isaacl (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per clear rationale of PorkchopGMX. And do so before it starts to get used... — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous and confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chompy Ace 12:38, 10 January 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Star Citizen ships → Star Citizen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There is no list of ships in the article, thus the redirect is useless. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:GAMECRUFT #7 (list of vehicles). Dominicmgm (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This redirect exists because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Citizen ships was closed as redirect on 1 September 2015, however there was no list in the article at that date either [1] (I've not looked to see if there has ever been). Pinging the non-blocked, logged-in participants and closer of that discussion: @Czar, Shoy, and Feminist:. Thryduulf (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above unless someone has evidence that the history needs to be preserved for attribution because the content was merged somewhere. By the way, I searched again and found some routine coverage of individual ships but it does not appear to be the norm for later ships. [2][3] czar 02:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Czar, who originally supported redirection at the AfD discussion. feminist (talk) 03:00, 3 January 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 with no prejudice against someone creating a list article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bloodiest Day → Battle of Antietam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

In its capitalized form this likely has come to refer to the Battle of Antietam, which is undoubtedly the bloodiest day in terms of American deaths, but without any other qualifiers, it almost certainly cannot be considered the bloodiest day in world history (see for example, Operation Meetinghouse). In spite of the association with Antietam, I feel like most searchers may reach the Antietam page and falsely believe it's the deadliest day in military history. Unless someone has a better target in mind (RfD may not be the best venue to parse this), it may be best to delete this redirect to avoid confusion until someone puts together a page like List of bloodiest days in history or something for which this would be an appropriate redirect. I also welcome arguments to keep, I just think this should be discussed. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or listify - there is very likely scope for a list of events noted as the "bloodiest day", for starters there is:
  • Detroit race riot of 1863 ("the bloodiest day that ever dawned upon Detroit.")
  • Ocoee massacre ("single bloodiest day in modern American political history")
  • 1913 in Italy#May ("the bloodiest day in the whole Italo-Turkish War")
  • Somme (department)#Battles of the Somme (The battle is best remembered for its first day, 1 July 1916 [...] the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army to this day.")
• and that's just from the first page of internal search engine results for pages that happen to include the exact phrase in sentences other than "bloodiest day of the year so far" or similar. Thryduulf (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment something like List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll might be an appropriate target? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is List of bloodiest battles in history, but I don't think any such list article currently breaks out bloodiest days. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or listify. To Thryduulf's list, I'll add Battle of Towton, England's bloodiest day 1 2 (by some accounts, more dead than the First Day of the Somme). Narky Blert (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambifigy or setindexify Per the above other target options -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no event that is explicitly called as such, but consider if you want to create a list of deadliest days or something like Deadliest single days of World War I. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:00, 3 January 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 Gettysburg National Military Park. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gettysburg National Battlefield → Gettysburg Battlefield  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I believe the "National" qualifier here means this would be better targeted to Gettysburg National Military Park (of which the battlefield is the primary feature). Mdewman6 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bahmin → Eleutheronema tetradactylum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

As Quetzal1964 has helpfully explained at Talk:Eleutheronema tetradactylum, this is a Malayalam-language common name for four species of fish, one of which is the target. As such it's both an inappropriate non-English redirect and an ambiguous one. I arrived at it by mistyping "Brahmin", but the fact that this rarely gets more than a couple of pageviews a month suggests no one much else is making that typo and retargeting wouldn't be useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not an English term and not appropriate for English Wikipedia. Quetzal1964 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Quetzal1964. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Brahmin. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this were already targetted there and then nominated here it would be deleted as an implausible typo so retargetting there it is not an appropriate outcome for this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ambiguous and as far as I can tell there's no specific connection between this species of fish and the Malayalam language. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:59, 3 January 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Café Voltaire → Cabaret Voltaire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A redirect to a DAB page with no title matches. Delete to avoid confusion and to encourage translation of fr:Café Voltaire (linked in Paul Fort). Narky Blert (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, this redirect serves no purpose. Lennart97 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 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 Delhi. As generic as the phrase sounds, participants all agree that the National Capital Territory of Delhi is the clear primary topic for the shortened version. ~ mazca ^talk 12:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• National capital territory → Capital districts and territories  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• National Capital Territory → Delhi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Delhi is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of this title, because it is an alternative caps of National Capital Territory, which redirects to Delhi. Delhi is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of these titles, because these are clippings of National Capital Territory of Delhi, which redirects to Delhi. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I've added National Capital Territory to this discussion as the nominator should have done when the nomination calls for synchronising redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The original nomination statement was "Delhi is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of this title, because it is an alternative caps of National Capital Territory, which redirects to Delhi." which was changed after the first two responses [4]. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Delhi, as investigation has shown that (to my surprise) this is actually the clear primary topic. However, Soumya-8974 note that Delhi is not primary topic because the uppercase form redirects to it - indeed that logic would equally apply to the statement that the general page is primary topic because the lowercase form redirects there. Delhi is primary topic because nearly every result for the exact phrase "National capital territory" (with any capitalisation) in places other than Wikipedia is about Delhi. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Delhi per above. Obvious to anyone who lives in northern India. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Delhi, my searches indicate that it is the clear primary topic for this phrase. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:28, 2 January 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. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ホン コン → Japanese occupation of Hong Kong  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

According to the article, the name for Japanese-occupied Hong Kong was 香港占領地. 122.60.65.44 (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ja:ホン コン doesn't exist. Narky Blert (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Hong Kong. As far as I can tell (and I'm happy to be corrected by someone who speaks Japanese) this is a Japanese name for Hong Kong, and has nothing to do with the occupation specifically. Given that Hong Kong was under Japanese control for 3 years and 8 months I think there's a reasonable case to be made for having a Japanese language redirect. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Narky Blert. I can see the rationale under WP:RLOTE for the Japanese language's relevance to Hong Kong, but if this isn't even a common enough Japanese rendition of the name to warrant a redirect on the Japanese wikipedia, it seems unnecessary here too. ~ mazca ^talk 13:02, 9 January 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. Participants consider there to be enough close mentions in the text and sources of the article to make this a relevant redirect. On an editorial note, a disambiguation page may be worth considering here due to varying historical use, and I may look at doing that myself - but the consensus certainly considers that keeping this redirect is worthwhile for now. ~ mazca ^talk 13:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• East Nordic → North Germanic languages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Term not included in target. Hildeoc (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. The 7th source in the article "On the origins of the Elfdalian nasal vowels from the perspective of diachronic dialectology and Germanic etymology" does use the phrase East Nordic, and it appears to be synonymous with East Scandinavian, which also redirects to North Germanic languages. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and check the article history of there was some unnoticed blanking. Alternatively, this could become a disambiguation page, if somebody is willing to spend 20 minutes on researching it. I think "East Nordic" is mostly used in historical context, near synonymous to Old East Norse, but the term is also used geographically and ethnographically, as e.g. here. --dab (𒁳) 08:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Nordic languages" is mentioned in the lede of North Germanic languages as an alternative name. "East Nordic (languages)" consequently refers to the Eastern branch of the latter. The term "East Nordic languages" is not very common, but does appear in scholarly literature[5]. –Austronesier (talk) 14:28, 2 January 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 speedy delete. Both WP:RFFL#Examples and WP:G5 here. Pete "wagahai wa neko de aru" AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ネコ → Cat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Cats have nothing to do with Japan. Also, this redirect was created by a pseron later blocked as sock. 122.60.65.44 (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As a WP:FORRED created by a sock. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G5 since a quick look shows that the original account was already indefinitely blocked for vandalism before the sock crested this redirect.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tagged it.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy per G5. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:38, 2 January 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 Akira (planned film)#Film rights and conception. czar 21:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Akira (2009 film) → Akira#Live action film  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There is no 2009 film named "Akira". It's also not mentioned on the targeted disambiguation page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect created as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akira (2009 film). I think the intended target would now be Akira (planned film) as 2009 is one of the mentioned intended release dates, so probably retarget there. Alternatively could retarget to Akira (manga)#Related media. A7V2 (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Akira (planned film) (article created 2019), where it's mentioned. That looks a more accurate target than Akira (manga), which was the result of that 2008 AFD. Narky Blert (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Akira (planned film)#Film rights and conception per those above, which covers the events leading to the delay and cancelation of the 2009 film. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per the above. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 2 January 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.