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. ✗plicit 11:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Korea discount → Economy of South Korea  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of discounts at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as apparent nonsense. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A quick search suggests this is not nonsense; a large of number of results turn up, including both on Google and Google Scholar, which say things like: The "Korea Discount" is defined by Forbes Magazine as "the amount by which investors undervalue Korean stocks." and this term first appeared in Korea in the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial crisis but quickly became global when Korea opened its stock market to foreign investors. This is evidently a notable topic. – Scyrme (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd still delete to encourage article creation. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a potentially notable topic not mentioned at the target or anywhere. A7V2 (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only mention in Enwiki is Presidential Council on Nation Branding, Korea which doesn't seem a good target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:41, 25 September 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 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FIFA 24 → FIFA (video game series)#Future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

FIFA 23 will be the last FIFA. We will find out if FIFA will make their own series. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are you asking for it to be deleted or retargeted? The section seems like a pretty good place to redirect someone who searches for "FIFA 24" since it talks about what it may be. It can be retargeted or changed into a full page depending on what happens in the future depending on what happens. Skynxnex (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would delete for now. FIFA still will make a decision to make their own video games. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Speedy Keep then. I think given my thoughts and Presidentman it's a perfectly fine redirect for now. Skynxnex (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep FIFA 24 is mentioned in the targeted section. There is no other plausible target, as an article on a possible FIFA-owned game series would be WP:TOOSOON. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:23, 22 September 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 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. ✗plicit 11:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Protest Republic → South Korea  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Although this was created with a link to an LA Times article asserting that Volatile South Korea is often called the Protest Republic, this moniker does not appear to be mentioned anywhere else. Google Scholar search results for the phrase are primarily about a Habermasian political paradigm by the same name ([1]), but are not discussed at Jurgen Habermas, and Google search results include references to South Africa by this name ([2]), among others. Deletion seems appropriate _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, being used in one news article doesn't make something a plausible search term. Hut 8.5 12:58, 24 September 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 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 Stanley#Transportation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stanley (cars) → List of Cars characters#Stanley  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary capitalization, as "Stanley (Cars)" already exists. Redundant clutter, so requesting deletion. TNstingray (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Stanley#Motor vehicles as a ((r from incomplete disambiguation)). - Eureka Lott 14:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue that the entry above this one should be the one retargeted, as the lowercase "c" in "cars" means this is an unnecessary plural. TNstingray (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Eureka Lott. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget this capitalisation to Stanley#Transportation as ambiguous ("Transportation" is the new subheading of "Motor vehicles" after clean up). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:27, 16 September 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 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 19:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Si dificile → Clostridioides difficile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible misspelling. This could be a plausible phonetic misspelling in Spanish. I expect most English speaker would pronounce "si" as "sigh". Plausible phonetic misspelling in English could be "see dificile" or "sea dificile". Plantdrew (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I considered nominating this and other redirects targeting the same page with multiple spelling differences from the correct spelling, but decided these were more or less harmless. Plausibly, someone could hear "C. difficile" and think it is Spanish "Si dificil" (yes difficult) and arrive at the target to learn what an English speaker likely meant, however, given that the correct Si dificil does not exist, it points to the lack of usefulness of this redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this spelling is correct in other Romance languages such as Italian and Romanian, but, again such an argument hardly rises to the level of this being a useful redirect, and could even indicate the potential for astonishment/confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I kind of wonder if this was meant as a (misspelled) joke, a play on French si difficile 'so/very difficult'. Can we get consensus to delete? Je pense que ça ne sera pas si difficile. [I think it won't be very difficult.] -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, French makes more sense, duh. For some inexplicable reason I had set it aside in my mind. Again, the correct Si difficile does not exist, and there is always WP:RLOTE to fall back on. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an implausible search term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 25 September 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 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 Race and appearance of Jesus. ✗plicit 23:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Jesus as Jew → Jesus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Jewishness of Jesus → Race and appearance of Jesus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Page was WP:BLARred in 2007 for having original research, but the target of Jesus alone isn't particularly satisfactory either. I'm putting this here largely because I can't think of a good target and don't really know enough about Jesus to find a proper target. TartarTorte 15:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't think of a reasonable target. Historical_Jesus#Other_possibly_historical_elements doesn't really fit.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @TartarTorte: Should Jewishness of Jesus be bundled here? Or alternately do you see its target—Race and appearance of Jesus—as adequate for this redirect? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin, I'm good with bundling that. They seem to fundamentally be handling the same topic, and I find the current target similarly inappropriate TartarTorte 15:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So bundled. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds like reasonable target. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think there's a perfect answer here, and long-term an article on the Jewishness of Jesus might be the best solution, but where I come down for now is disambiguate (drafted) at Jewishness of Jesus among Race and appearance of Jesus, Portraits of the historical Jesus (a redirect to a section of Historical Jesus), and Jesus, King of the Jews. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Race and appearance of Jesus better than existing target and better than deletion, IMHO. VQuakr (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per VQuakr. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Race and appearance of Jesus per VQuakr. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:33, 23 September 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 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. ✗plicit 13:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Vrilology → Heathenry (new religious movement)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Vrilology" is a synonym for "Balder Rising" (nominated below) and shares the same tragic story. Let's reunite the two in Valhalla. Paradoctor (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not mentioned in the target or anywhere else. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:37, 25 September 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 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. ✗plicit 13:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Balder Rising → Heathenry (new religious movement)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Balder Rising" was discussed at the target until this 2011 edit nuked it. Not mentioned anywhere else: Time to die. Paradoctor (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not mentioned in the target or anywhere else. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:38, 25 September 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 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 Edward of England. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Edward of Great Britain and Ireland → Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous, could refer to any one of the kings Edward of England. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the disambiguation page. BD2412 T 05:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The only person who was king of Great Britain and Ireland was Edward VII as the earlier Edwards were king's only of England, Edward VIII was king of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We don't currently have a target that lists Edward VII and the two people at Prince Edward (Prince Edward, Duke of York and Albany and Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn) who were princes of GB and the whole of Ireland, nor does the Edward of England page cover everyone who is of GB and Northern Ireland. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When KEVIII was on the throne in 1936 Ireland was a Dominion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to DAB as proposed. According to this, Edward VIII's title also contained "Ireland" (not "Northern Ireland"). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. Clearly not the primary topic, and there doesn't appear to be one. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the disambiguation page, which now begins "Edward of England or Edward of the United Kingdom may refer to...". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:56, 25 September 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 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. ✗plicit 11:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disneyland Manila → Hong Kong Disneyland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. Not sure why this was created in 2008. There is a Facebook petition for a Disneyland in Manila but that has nothing to do with Hong Kong. Recommend deleting this. MB 02:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Google searches primarily turn up non-Disney parks being described as the "Philippines Disneyland" or "Disneyland of the Philippines" (at least three different ones have been given this moniker, the closest to Manila being "about 45 minutes away"). Thryduulf (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Thryduulf's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There isn't a Disneyland in Manila; Manila isn't in Hong Kong. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- no Disneyland in Manila, and Hong Kong Disneyland =/= Disneyland Philippines Harbouri (alt) (talk) 13:22, 27 September 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 the appropriate discussion page.