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 00:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Roman Catholic organizations not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church → List of Independent Catholic denominations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The article List of Independent Catholic denominations 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.
I recommend deletion. Also, the subject named in the redirect is not related to the target. Last and least, this redirect is unused. Veverve (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and redirect name is too confusing to be useful to a reader. There are better ways to word whatever question is being asked here. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I disagree with Mr. Guye that the redirect is confusing, the problem is that we do not (that I can find) have a list that matches that subject, not that the redirect has an unclear subject. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 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. ✗plicit 00:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Political problems → Politics#Political science  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

One does not equal the other, delete for lack of a useful target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely implausible redirect. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:00, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael Jackson (musican) → Michael Jackson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Typo that would perhaps be plausible in the main part of the title, but becomes implausible within a disambiguator. 98 pageviews in the 2 years since creation, which is very few considering that the target page got 620,000 in the past month. (Consider further that Michael Jackson (musician) didn't exist till I just created it.) I think we can safely delete.

N.B.: Not notifying the redirect's creator, per his statements at past RfDs that he is retired.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whooooo, first new RfD of the year! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:02, 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. -- Aervanath (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• UNSC Marine Corps Troops → Factions of Halo#United Nations Space Command  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Low-probability search term with only 185 pageviews between 2015 and now, many of which were probably only discovered AFTER someone found the hatnote on the target page, or clicked a piped link to the redirect in List of fictional firearms. The exact string "UNSC Marine Corps Troops" is not found once within the article or anywhere else in encyclopedia namespace, with the exception of that single hatnote.

There was a previous RFD at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_1#UNSC_Marine_Corps_Troops, but that was over potential confusion with UN Peacekeeping, while this is simply because it is a redirect with low probability, using a string that is not found in the encyclopedia at all. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 21:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:RFD#KEEP #5. Someone finds it useful. 185 Someones in 6 years is enough reason to keep. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not necessarily - as Plutonical said, they could have clicked on the piped link. Besides, just because the redirect was used doesn't mean it was helpful. ― Qwerfjkltalk 13:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Then remove the redirect from the article. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above. We don't (and can't) know how people arrive at the redirect, but even if it is only after reading a hatnote then so what? The redirect takes people to the correct target and isn't in the way of anything else so there will be no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, bypass lone backlink, and check back in in 2-5 years when we have a better sense of if deleting it would cause issues. (Although I'm not sure I'd !vote to delete even then. It's not a wholly implausible search term, and is unambiguous unless, as discussed at the previous RfD, someone somehow gets it in their head that the United Nations Security Council has Marines.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:32, 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) 02:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Army of twenty million → Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The 20 million army → Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 20 million Marines → Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is the name of a speech by Ayatollah Khomeini, delivered in exile prior to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which may well be notable in its own right. It is not, however, mentioned at the current target, nor is it directly equatable to the existing IRGC. I would suggest deletion to encourage article creation, given that none of our articles about Khomeini or Iranian history appear to currently mention it. If duly sourced information can be added to an existing article, that would also be a feasible solution. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's rationale. Veverve (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep 3rd anchored bi (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The anchored segment as written does not appear WP:DUE, as a single-sentence subsection in what is otherwise a fairly well fleshed-out article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:00, 1 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 11:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitions, Theological → Papal infallibility  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Theological Definitions → Papal infallibility  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Theological definition → Papal infallibility  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The expressions are way too broad and vague to redirect to such a precise concept. I recommend either deletion or redirect to Theology. Veverve (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Extreme Catholic bias -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 19:54, 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! 00:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:05, 1 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. As the nomination and first !vote seem to have misunderstood this page's nature, I look to the comments from Qwerfjkl's explanation onward. Across these seven !votes (4 keep, 1 weak keep, 2 delete, with arguments of roughly equal strength), we're left with a reasonably clear consensus to keep. However, the deletion side, as well as the weak keep, raise compelling points about potential limitations of WP:RDRAFT. This page is an edge case in at least four ways: It was moved within draftspace, it was retargeted due to double redirection by move, its title does not match that of its target, and its title does match that of an unrelated mainspace page. Perhaps some discussion at WT:DRAFT or elsewhere would be a good idea, to clarify whether any of these things should be an exception to RDRAFT. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Candyman → Candyman (2021 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a draft of a redirect, not an article. Pretty useless. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is already a disambiguation page at Candyman so a redirect should not be created (or drafted) to the film. User:GKFX^talk 13:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - harmless. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @Clarityfiend: This is not a draft of a redirect, but a redirect in draftspace, of which there are thousands, left over from page moves. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If anything, this should be a redirect to Candyman due to the ambiguity. However, there was never a draft for the disambiguation page, so it'd be a bit misleading to have such a redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Says it's from a page move. I assume it's from an AFC acceptance. It's normal to keep these, please see WP:RDRAFT, and also the RFC in the archives of WT:CSD that had strong support for not deleting these. WP:G13 says that redirects are exempt from G13, so that avenue for deletion is not available. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tavix. While WP:RDRAFT does say we should retain redirects that are the result of page moves to articlespace, this redirect is a result of a page move within draftspace, which was then moved multiple times before being moved to articlespace. It only currently points to articlespace because it has been updated by bots to do so.-- Aervanath (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RDRAFT. This redirects the article that this title was created as draft of, that the title was changed is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as the page was at this title for about a minute. But before that it was called User:Sitanor/Candy, but that redirect has been deleted. It appears creation of this page involved several socks. And I reckon that they will not need that draft: redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As clarified by Qwerfjkl, This is not "a draft of a redirect". Not clear why the nomination says it is useless. Oppose the mismatching title deletion rationales. Any page after being moved from draftspace to mainspace can be renamed any number of times. We do not seek out and delete the draft redirects because the title no longer matches. Also, page moves within draftspace are as relevant as page moves within mainspace, unless the drafts gudelines indicate that only the last draft title before moving to mainspace needs to be kept. Jay (talk) 03:45, 11 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.