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 02:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Superman 6 → Man of Steel (film) (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Superman 7 → Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Superman VI → Man of Steel (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Man of Steel and its sequel are reboots of the Superman film series, and aren't connected to the Reeve films or set in the same universe as those films. Nobody refers to these films as "Superman 6" or "Superman 7" much like no one calls Spider-Man: Homecoming "Spider-Man 6" or the Dark Knight trilogy as "Batmans 5-7". MightyArms (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible and baffling. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both and "Superman 6's" Roman numeral sister (I'll be adding it here soon) as being discontinuous from the Reeve films. Sure, someone might call them "Superman 6" and/or "Superman 7", but these entries have no relation to the "first" one from the supposed series. Regards, SONIC678 05:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per related discussions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:47, 23 August 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 02:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merlin Riders FC → Ascension Island#Football  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target Ascension Island#Football so this redirect serves little purpose now. Was previously a redirect to Ascension Island Football League where it was mentioned in passing but now that that article is gone, this redirect is redundant. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. While this started life as an article, it was redirected per the outcome of an AfD so there is no issue with deleting the redirect here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 21 August 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 💬 18:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Timeline of the far future 2 → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Back in late February 2012, this retargeted Farthest reaches of future time before that was redirected to the current target more than an hour later. I'm not sure why we still need it anymore, since it's not getting very many pageviews nowadays. Thought I'd bring it over to RfD to discuss. Regards, SONIC678 17:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This isn't a plausible search term for the target, or likely anything that isn't a sequel to a work called (approximately) "Timeline of the Far Future", and I can't find any indication that such exists. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the lack of anything for this to plausibly refer to. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:06, 25 August 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 no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sedevacantist Antipope → Conclavism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Sedevacantist Antipopes → Conclavism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Sedevacantist antipope → Conclavism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Sedevacantist antipopes → Conclavism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not all antipopes are part of Conclavism. The Conclavism article even states: "Conclavism is different from what George Chryssides calls the "Mysticalists" phenomenon, i.e. people declaring themselves popes after receiving a personal mystical revelation. This is because in the Mysticalists' cases no human institution is used to have a pope appointed; an example of those cases is the Apostles of Infinite Love." Other examples of non-Conclavist sedevacantist antipopes are Clemente Domínguez y Gómez, fr:Michel Collin, Chester Olszewski, or Christophe XVIII.
There are no good retarget. Therefore, I believe those redirects should be all deleted. Veverve (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a reasonable search term. Sedevacantists who elect an antipope formally are engaging in conclavism, so it might make sense for someone to casually search for this topic that way. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've listed this over at WP:CATHOLICISM. I have looked at information for about 2 hours to figure out whether or not the non-conclavist antipope examples are truly non-conclavist or not, and I feel like my position is no more clear than it was before starting my research. TartarTorte 13:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy ping TartarTorte before the close, as an editor who did initial research on this but did not conclude. Jay 💬 11:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Having done looking into the recently-deceased Pope Michael for other projects, I am fairly certain most cases of sedevacantist popes (which, upon reflection, I suppose is oxymoronic) are conclavist in some way. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:54, 21 August 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 Mango#Uses. Jay 💬 16:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mango ice cream → Sorbetes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Mango icecream → Mango#Cuisine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was a article about a flavor of Sorbetes that was merged into Sorbetes, hence the redirect left behind. Sorbetes is a type of ice cream (in the Philippines). Mango is a flavor; all kinds of ice cream can be made with mango flavor. The current target is misleading. I don't see an alternative, so delete. MB 03:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added Mango icecream which has a different target. Mango does say ""Mango is used to make ... ice cream", but I don't know how helpful or illuminating that is. (also Mango§Cusine is a dead section link, if this is kept it should be changed to Mango§Uses. MB 04:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as misleading --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of ice cream flavors as ((R to list entry)). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, retargetting to the list is reasonable --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Paradoxically, redirecting to the list would strip the topic of its presumption of notability, making it ineligible for inclusion in that list, in turn invalidating the redirect under discussion and leading to its deletion. Ibadibam (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Mango#Uses. Ibadibam (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Mango#Uses. It's useful as Sorbetes is mentioned there. Peter James (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to be leaning towards retargeting, and participants are currently split between two proposed targets: List of ice cream flavors and Mango#Uses.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Mango#Uses This section appears to have a more thorough explanation of the topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:00, 21 August 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.