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.
These redirects don't have much history beyond being leftovers from moves and fixing double redirects, and aren't getting very many pageviews nowadays, possibly because of the misspelling of "film." They also don't have any links from article space, so I'm not sure if we still need them. Also, I didn't nominate Comedy flm because it's been getting an interestingly large number of pageviews this year. Regards, SONIC67822:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, including "Comedy flm" - I don't know how many articles we have with "film" in the disambiguator, but keeping these would be a precedent for them all to have a redirect from "flm". No thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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.
This is an ambiguous term, because there’s more than one Seven Regional. For example Seven (Southern Cross Austereo), is sometimes called Seven Regional and the former GWN7 network is now called Seven Regional WA. Someone may also put the current redirect target (Prime7) at the top of the new disambiguation page. Bassie f (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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.
Implausible typo or misnomer (was meant to be MRSV for "multi-role support vessel"), but created in 2012 so not R3-eligible. We don't have an article for modified semi-solid Rappaport-Vassiliadis medium, and the mention of multiple sclerosis–associated retrovirus is buried deep in Endogenous retrovirus that a redirect wouldn't seem helpful. Paul_012 (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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.
Recently created, first pointing to Eastern Orthodox Christianity and then to here. The other two pages can clearly be treated synonymously, and either might be searched but improbable that people would search for "Eastern Christian Orthodoxy" looking for those pages, and the term is not synonymous, as it means, literally, Eastern Christians who are orthodox, but orthodox would include Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and perhaps even orthodox protestantism. It does not uniquely refer to "Eastern Orthodoxy". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
which "eastern orthodox christians" are typically known as protestants or catholics instead? eastern catholic is obscure and protestantism is (since the reformation) one faith quite unable to be orthodox by definition even if it tries to be (since it rejects several ancient ecumenical councils). you could make this a separate page instead explaining orthodoxy from the perspective of eastern Christian church faith. Lord saturnus (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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.
Comment: The user who created this redirect has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I have been going through their edits as they made a number of problematic edits, a few of which are some questionable redirects. I changed the Chinese skyscraper ban redirect to List of tallest buildings in China and was just about to do the same to this one as I didn't initially notice that there was a discussion because the blocked user removed it. (The list article might not be the best target, but the lede did at least mention a ban on buildings above 500 meters, so I figured that was better than what it was. Also, I have restored the deletion notice at the redirect.) With all that aside, I don't really know if the redirects are needed. As mentioned, the list does mention the ban, but it is only a brief mention in the lede. This redirect seems to be less useful than the other as I don't really see the need for the year to have been included. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Roost. The list article's lead invalidates the nomination statement. On Super Goku's concern about the year in the title, the year is mentioned in the list's lead. Jay 💬07:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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.
Comment "Wei Lang" appears to be an unsystematic attempt at transcribing either the CantoneseorMinnan pronunciation of his name. It shows up primarily in early 20th century sources [1][2]. On the other hand there's a totally different notable person (zh:魏朗; no English Wikipedia article of his own, though mentioned in several other articles) whose name is spelled Wei Lang in Pinyin. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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.
Comment: "Little Bukaria" was the 18th-19th Century word for Uzbekistan; see:
Aron Arrowsmith (1831), A Compendium of Ancient and Modern Geography, The British Library, p. 679.
Samuel Griswold Goodrich (1840), The Second Book of History: Including the Modern History of Europe, Africa, and Asia, C.J. Hendee, and Jenks and Palmer, p. 167
John Hartley (1813), Geography for Youth, Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners, J. Parry, p. 148
Keep: Per benlisquare. With those citations realistically a mention could be added to the article of its being called Little Bukaria historically, but even if not an {{R not mentioned}} should be helpful. TartarTorte15:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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.
Delete as unneeded and per WP:G7. Please note that John Adams (unique among all elected US vice presidents) was sworn in independently from the presidential inauguration. This is the reason I created the redirect at “swearing in of …” and not “1st VP inauguration of ...” and why IMO the current target is more appropriate than his presidential inauguration. I created this redirect to support a living vice presidents template, part of a system developed in my user space. I later modified this system so the template was not necessary and have just now modified it so that this redirect is no longer used. Consequently there are now no more references to this redirect other than those associated with this discussion. Thus i think it qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:G7 but I’m not sure that applies after a RfD is under way. YBG (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).