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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• EE UU → United States  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Very unlikely redirect Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 23:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This is the standard Spanish abbreviation for "United States" ("Estados Unidos", the double letters indicating plurals), which means that there is a clear connection between the redirect and the target; which backed up by es:Eastod Unidos which sates (in note 3) that the EE UU is the abbreviation used in Spanish by the US government and is the most common used in Spanish. The question is whether a redirect from the Spanish abbreviation is a useful redirect, WP:RFOREIGN is the general guide to such cases. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep In addition to having redirects from several versions of the name in Spanish (e.g. Estados Unidos), indicating that there is an affinity between the US and the Spanish language, there was consensus to keep EEUU, EE.UU. and EE. UU. at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 19#EEUU and nothing has changed since then. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep what Thryduulf said. Extremely common Spanish abbreviation. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Hi I didn't realise this was an abbreviation for anything, I would like to withdraw this. Cheers and my apologies, Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:35, 3 January 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 War as metaphor (restoring previous target). (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 02:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Previously targeted war as metaphor. Unsure what target would fit Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 21:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to war as metaphor which explicitly mentions this phrase and is also where war on redirects to. Not sure why its target was changed in the first place. Mlb96 ( talk) 17:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to War as metaphor per Mlb96. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:41, 10 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. -- Aervanath ( talk) 02:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Godea, Ioan → Măeriște  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

While reviewing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 29#Slovaks in Hungary (Giurtelecu Șimleului), I noticed an excessive amount of redirects to this target. Here are a list of people(?) that I have verified are not mentioned at the target article. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 21:05, 2 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. -- Aervanath ( talk) 02:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propanium → Carbonium ion  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Butanium → Carbonium ion  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Isobutanium → Carbonium ion  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Listed (and linked) at Onium ion#Group 14 (carbon group) onium cations, but that also contains a number of redlinks, making a case for deletion to encourage article creation. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 20:59, 2 January 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 setindexify at Mile road system with no prejudice against any of the four potential next steps described by Uanfala. And with thanks to Elli for drafting the SIA after two months of this kicking around. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 03:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Mile road system → Roads and freeways in metropolitan Detroit  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Mile Road System → Roads and freeways in metropolitan Detroit  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]  Added -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Mile road → Roads and freeways in metropolitan Detroit  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]  Added -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Mile Road → Roads and freeways in metropolitan Detroit  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]  Added -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

This should be retargeted to Mile Road System (Michigan) as that has more details on the topic and is more generalized than the Mile road system specifically around Detroit. snood1205^{( Say Hi! (talk))} 02:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Move Mile Road System (Michigan) to Mile Road System, Retarget Mile road system to Mile Road System, and add a hatnote to Roads_in_Cincinnati#Mile_Road_System (creating a redirect for this at Mile Road System (Cincinnati) would probably be best). I agree that the broader Michigan article is the primary topic here, so both the capitalized and uncapitalized versions should target there, but there is no need to have the parenthetical disambiguation if it's the primary topic (should be at the base name per WP:QUALIFIER). I think the only thing that really needs to be disambiguated is the Cincinnati content, so a hatnote will work ( WP:ONEOTHER), but if anyone can find more than we'd need a dab page at Mile Road System (disambiguation). Mdewman6 ( talk) 18:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  I guess a dab should be created to disambiguate between Mile Road System (Michigan), Mile Road System (Detroit), and Mile Road System (Cincinnati), but I do think this should be at Mile Road System (disambiguation) with the base name at the Michigan article. Mdewman6 ( talk) 20:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  I don't think it's a good idea to take a particular instance of a concept as the primary topic over the concept itself, even if it's the best known instance and the general article hasn't been created yet. Article titles should ideally follow the long-term patterns of the topic structure rather than the contingencies of what has currently been written on Wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Michigan, Detroit and Cincinnati appear to be the only three uses of "mile road system" as a noun, every Google hit when excluding those three words uses "mile" as an adjective when referring to a road system that is a given number of miles long (e.g. 9-mile road system, 3873-mile road system, etc). Thryduulf ( talk) 21:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment systems of mile roads are common across many jurisdictions, as they are cadastral roads set 1-mile apart, part of the colonial surveying and subdivision of the land. There appears to be missing articles. mile road should not point to Michigan/Detroit alone. -- 64.229.90.53 ( talk) 03:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• I basically agree with the IP. " Mile road system" should be an article on the general concept of such a system, noting and linking to the jurisdictions in which it is specifically used. BD2412 T 05:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Anyone remains free to create an article about the general concept at the lowercase title, but article creation can't be the outcome of an RfD discussion. Perhaps a WP:SETINDEX at Mile road system could be an appropriate alternative to a disambiguation page? Someone would need to draft one below the redirect content for us to consider. Mdewman6 ( talk) 19:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A Set Index Page could help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• The easiest solution is to create a short SIA: just list the Michigan- and Cincinnati-related articles with bullet points and then slap {{ sia}} at the end. This would be a perfectly acceptable solution until someone decides to commit more effort to the topic. If they do, then I can see several options: 1) writing a brand new article; 2) reworking the brief paragraph on the topic at Street or road name#Grid-based naming systems and retargeting there; 3)responding to the previously expressed concerns about the notability of the Michigan article by moving it to the base name and rewriting it to be about the general topic; 4) responding to #3 by nominating at AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are a couple similar redirects to the target that should follow whatever happens here, so I'm bundling them in. Also, a draft of a potential Broad-concept article/index/disambiguation would be helpful for those wanting closure in that direction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• SIA, with the possibility of expansion into a full article later by an interested editor who can hopefully find more sources discussing the topic in general. The primary topic is the concept itself, but the individual implementations that exist have more coverage than the concept overall does. Elli ( talk | contribs) 02:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  I've gone ahead and drafted an SIA at mile road system. Elli ( talk | contribs) 02:52, 10 January 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. -- Aervanath ( talk) 02:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Los Angeles County John Doe (1968) → List of unidentified murder victims in the United States#California  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted because it is an unlikely search term and the content has been removed from the article due to the lack of secondary and tertiary sources. Further, the naming itself is problematic as there are dozens of John Does from Los Angeles County from the year 1968 (none of which are notable or have coverage outside law enforcement databases or other similar primary sources that lack independence). 4meter4 ( talk) 17:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I don't see an issue with the naming, since it seems to be how sections are titled in that article, but delete unless a mention is restored. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 00:44, 10 January 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 00:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• The Carpet (comedy episode) → The Carpet (The Office)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Please delete as page has been moved from this for consistency and this original page is not suitable as could cause more confusion 86.10.25.197 ( talk) 16:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete as a non-standard disambiguator. It's a recent {{ r from move}}, but the page was only at this title for several hours. Incoming links will need to be fixed prior to deletion. - Eureka Lott 19:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Issue of incoming links has been sorted 86.10.25.197 ( talk) 09:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I wasn't sure about the best disambiguator so am quite happy with the change. Bermicourt ( talk) 21:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete to avoid confusion -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:28, 7 January 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Nonstop sql → NonStop SQL  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unlikely capitalization: Only link was from Comparison of relational database management systems, which for some reason was a pipelink capitalized exactly like this title (capital N only) despite the visible wording being properly capitalized instead; I corrected it. No evidence of all-lower-case being common now or in the past. Closeapple ( talk) 03:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep as people refuse to capitalize things when typing informally, it would seem likely to occur. Tag as {{ R from incorrect capitalization}} -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 04:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the IP editor. There is no benefit to deletion and at least some potential benefit to keeping it (not all methods of finding Wikipedia content are case insensitive, and internal links are not the only measure of utility). Thryduulf ( talk) 18:26, 2 January 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• East Orthodox → Eastern Orthodox Church  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Very unlikely to be typed, and it is never used to refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church or any church in fact.
I recommend deletion. Veverve ( talk) 02:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep as a plausible mistake. —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  02:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep this would be an easy mistake for ESL speakers to make. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep per both above. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:34, 2 January 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 Bishop#Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Anglican churches. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church → Eastern Orthodox Church organization  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The redirect should target Bishop#Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Anglican churches, but the content of the redirect was merged into another article (the target) which now does not have the content this redirect mentions anymore. Veverve ( talk) 02:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Support: Makes sense to change targets. GenQuest ^"scribble" 03:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Support agree with this one per the nom rationale. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Support the nom's suggestion: makes sense. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:44, 6 January 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Eastern Orthodox opposition to the doctrine of Papal Primacy → Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Papal primacy and papal supremacy are two different things, so the redirect is misleading; unless you only take the Catholic point of view (Catholics interpret papal supremacy as being papal primacy). Eastern Orthodoxy has no opposition to papal primacy, only to papal supremacy.
I recommend deletion. Veverve ( talk) 01:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep the distinction the nom makes is covered in the article. The solution if there is a problem with the title is an WP:RM, not deleting a plausible search term. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep per TonyBallioni. No benefit to deleting this. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:35, 2 January 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. Jay (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Eastern theology → Eastern Orthodox theology  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not every theology is Eastern Orthodox. There is Islamic theology, Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox theology, possibly Greco-Roman mysteries, and probably others.
I recommend deletion, as the redirect is too broad to make anything of it. Veverve ( talk) 01:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete My first thought went to Dharmic religions. It could also refer to Eastern religions or East Asian religions. Theological divergences resulting from geographic separation is not at all rare in human history. —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  02:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete clearly this is extremely biased towards Europeanism and Christianity. "Eastern theology" here doesn't even consider what's really in the East, instead of the middle west. -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 04:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete I created the redirect and I agree with all of the above. My bad for not considering it!-- MA SHAUN IX 14:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete in modern context my first thought would jump to South and East Asian religions. Agree this is confusing. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• delete as vague at best -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 22:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• delete way too broad. -- Heanor ( talk) 12:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment: @ Mr. Guye, Mashaunix, TonyBallioni, Lenticel, and Heanor: while we are at it, do you think a similar discussion should take place for Western theology? Veverve ( talk) 15:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Since it redirects to Western religions, which is just as (or more) broad and vague, I do not think any change is needed.-- MA SHAUN IX 19:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think the current target is broad enough for that. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 04:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete as hopelessly ambiguous. Western theology is okay as a reasonably unambiguous reference to theology in Western culture. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 17:29, 5 January 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. Jay (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Medicine and Canon Law → Canon law of the Catholic Church  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Consent (in Canon Law) → Canon law of the Catholic Church  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Compromise (in Canon Law) → Canon law of the Catholic Church  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No mention of the subject at the target. Moreover, "Canon Law" refers to Canon law in general and not only to the Catholic canon law.
I recommend deletion. Veverve ( talk) 01:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 04:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete since not contained in the target article. The NPOV point isn't relevant per my previous responses. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:15, 2 January 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 Catholic (disambiguation)#Christian denominations. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Christian - Catholic → Catholic Church  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Strange redirect, very unlikely to be used. It may have been created by mistake. Veverve ( talk) 01:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Unsure This sounds like it originated from an academic database, like this is the tag that marks works that discuss Roman Catholicism. It's probably a viable search term in said database, but I'm not sure it would help much in Wikipedia. —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  02:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Catholic (disambiguation)#Christian denominations which lists all the articles that someone could be looking for with this. I agree that this is likely some classification scheme title and those are usually likely search terms here. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment Are there similar redirects to other denominations (ie, "Christian - Methodist", etc). It might be easier to decide on the whole of the series, rather than each entry piecemeal. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 15:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, there's a total of 25 redirects in the same format. See Special:PrefixIndex/Christian -. They were all created in 2011, though not all by the same editor. As far as I can see, this is the first time any of them have been discussed at RfD. 61.239.39.90 ( talk) 03:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retarget as Thryduulf said per Mr. Guye's explanation Signed, IAm Chaos 03:49, 9 January 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 procedural close. Per Lennart97, a partially-disambiguated title should not redirect to a fully-disambiguated one, but rather the other way around, so the correct venue here is RM. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 08:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Jonah (song) → Jonah (disambiguation)#Other uses in arts, entertainment, and media  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

It seems to me, based on notability and reliable sourcing, that WP:PLA would have us retarget this to Jonah (Kanye West song). It seems very unlikely that any reader would be looking for disambiguation page about the word "Jonah" when searching for "Johan (song)." There's only one other song and it's from 1987 and it has been averaging less than 10 views/day for over a decade now. –– FormalDude ^talk 23:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• This isn't really an RfD issue; if the Kanye song is the primary topic, it should be moved to Jonah (song) (instead of Jonah (song) redirecting to Jonah (Kanye West song) as you propose) and the venue for that is RM. However, Jonah (song) in that case would be a partially disambiguated title and the standards for that are relatively high, so I'm not sure such an RM would succeed, especially given how recent the Kanye song is. Lennart97 ( talk) 00:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:27, 2 January 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 Triominoes#Variants. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Quad-Ominos → Pressman Toy Corporation#Products  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Redirects to a large list of products without any explanation. Triominoes#Variants seems to be a more helpful target. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 14:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Retarget per nom. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 12:54, 9 January 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 Procedural close. Withdrawn by nominator, who converted the redirect into a DAB page. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Old Roman Catholic → Old Catholic Church  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This expression is never used to refer to Old Catholics. It is used, however, by some micro-denominations such as here, here, and Old Roman Catholic Church in North America.
I recommend deletion, as this term is never used to refer to the Old Catholic movement. Veverve ( talk) 00:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• The page is linked from Rudolph de Landas Berghes, Arnold Mathew, Richard Arthur Marchenna and The Society of Mercy. Maybe this explains why it is getting consistent daily pageviews. If all of them are referring to Old Roman Catholic Church in North America, then retarget there. Jay (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Withdraw: I will turn the page into a DAB; I see it as a necessity after seeing the link I nominated and Old Roman Catholic Church being used in many different ways. Veverve ( talk) 14:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply

DAB at Old Roman Catholic done. Veverve ( talk) 19:10, 9 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. -- Aervanath ( talk) 02:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Breakaway Catholics → Independent Catholicism  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Breakaway Catholic Church → Independent Catholicism  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The article Independent Catholicism does not list all Catholic denominations which self-identify as Catholic yet are not in full communion with the Holy See. List of Independent Catholic denominations only lists denominations which are considered to be Independent Catholic, which is defined in the article with sources as " 'micro-churches claiming apostolic succession and valid sacraments', in spite of not being affiliated to the historic Catholic churches such as the Roman Catholic and Utrechter Old Catholic churches." Denominations such as the Union of Utrecht, the Mariavite Church, or the Union of Scranton, are Old Catholic - so not in communion with the Holy See - without being Independent Catholic.
Also, the term "breakaway" is quite pejorative and biased ( WP:R#DELETE n. 3).
I recommend deletion. Veverve ( talk) 00:00, 2 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. -- Aervanath ( talk) 02:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Reformed Catholic Church (Old Catholic) → Independent Catholicism  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No mention of this denomination on the target article anymore. The denomination does not match the WP:NCHURCH criteria so an article should not be recreated.
I recommend deletion. Veverve ( talk) 00:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment: This was quite a big article, and user Bistropha made it a redirect with comment Merge to Independent Catholic Churches; no reliable independent sources found that actually discuss this church, but I don't see Bistropha performing a merge to any article, or there being a merge discussion. Jay (talk) 05:54, 9 January 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.