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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Meow Chow → Cat food  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article. Seems like a neologism, but searching on search engines, the results are mostly for subjects exclusive from the target article's topic, including results for book titles. Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Odd that nom would say the book titles are "exclusive from the article's subject" given the one I could find is called "Meow Chow: Hearty Recipes for Cats" suggesting it is indeed about food for cats. Google returns several other uses of this term as well, not enough to make it a notable term but enough for a redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...That's a book title, and your statement validates my WP:NEO claim. If that book is notable enough, the book should have an article written about it, and this redirect should target that article. Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ...And since I now see that some online dictionaries make this claim/connect between the two terms (not sure why I didn't see those before) ... I'm going to withdraw this. (I guess I blame my geolocation changing since my last search, not sure.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smartyllama: I apologize for the time waste I caused. Steel1943 (talk) 00:37, 29 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 Calico#History. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Calico History → Tortoiseshell cat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Just a plain WP:SURPRISE targeting its current target. This would probably be better deleted (1st preference) if it is not deemed helpful enough to be retargeted to Calico#History (2nd preference). Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Steel1943: you moved the page and changed the target before RfDing. I do not oppose the page move. However, I fail to see why you retargetted. Veverve (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Veverve: See the previous target of Calico cat history, the title where I moved the edit history [1]; the target of the nominated redirect was where it targeted prior to the history being moved. Steel1943 (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Calico#History per nom, in the absence of a proper-cased Calico history redirect. Jay (talk) 20:58, 4 February 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 00:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Majin cat → Tabby cat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if there is no explanation. Majin is a place in Persia, so I wondered if it's a kind of Persian cat. Jay (talk) 20:51, 4 February 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 Indult. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no mention of the information at the target. An AfD turned this page into a redirect. However, since this AfD was closed, the content of what was previously a redirect has not been merged into the target. It cannot be merged, because the subject - "a traditionalist Catholic term used for Catholics who attended only the licit celebrations of the Tridentine Mass in Latin according to the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal but also refused to be involved with Traditionalist groups that were not in good standing with the Papacy, such as the Society of St Pius X" - is nowhere to be found in any RS.
Therefore, I recommend either deletion, or a retarget to Indult. Veverve (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have added/bundled Indult Catholics with this nomination since it would also be affected by the result. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Indult, as even though that topic is not equivalent to the original content, it is nevertheless exclusively about Catholic practice and will presumably satisfy at least some readers. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:15, 5 February 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 00:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Great muscles of the head → Cat anatomy#Muscles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Great muscles of the head" isn't exclusive to cats. Not sure if there's a good target for this. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a misnomer. An article was at this title for two months before it was moved to the more contextual title Great muscles of the head (cat). Jay (talk) 20:10, 4 February 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. There is a consensus that this is a case where a redlink would be preferable to a redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Clifford A. Wright → Mediterranean cuisine#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I propose deleting this. The redirect leads to the History section of Mediterranean cuisine. He's only barely mentioned there, as one of several people whose comments on Mediterranean cuisine are offered. There's nothing informative about him there, and he isn't exactly integral to the very notion of Mediterranean cuisine. There are no links to the page from other articles. Largoplazo (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP – I've added some 20 links to the page from other articles, sorry I forgot to do that. There is evidently scope for an article on this cook, but a redirect to what he is best known for is a start: redirects are cheap, and the links usefully assemble knowledge about him. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects may be cheap but they should still be useful. If someone clicks one of the links you just created, presumably it's because they expect to find out who Clifford A. Wright is. This redirect will inform them that this is a man who once made a comment about Mediterranan cuisine. (Yes, it also says he was a "cookery author", but I suspect that part is already made plain in each of the articles that mention him, as context for why they're mentioning him.) The redirect is an empty promise. Largoplazo (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By "the links usefully assemble knowledge about him", it sounds as though people researching a subject are in the habit of doing so by following backlinks, one after another, on the off-chance that some of them might happen to lead to substantive information on the subject instead of only a passing mention, and that they are aware that this is expected of them. Largoplazo (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are now a lot of incoming links, then this is a case where red links would be of more value than links to a redirect because red links will at least encourage the creation of an article, whereas the blue links don't and fail to yield useful information when clicked. Largoplazo (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If the subject of this redirect is indeed notable, there should either be an article created for them or this redirect could point toward some sort of list article or parent subject which this subject may be most known for, such as their restaurant. etc. Having this redirect target a page about a food genre is general is misleading, and can be considered a "harmful" redirect situation due to the scope of this target not being exclusive to the subject of the redirect. So ... delete per WP:REDLINK unless a more suitable target can be found. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject needs a standalone article, and having it redirected for now to a target that is not very helpful is not going to get the article started. Jay (talk) 19:52, 4 February 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) 19:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Siegmar → Chemnitz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Chemnitz-Siegmar → Chemnitz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Only mentioned once within target in a list with links only for actual articles. Hildeoc (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete consistent with the other redlinks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:50, 28 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) 17:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrew Webber → Andrew Lloyd Webber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This is wrong. "Lloyd Webber" is a double-barrelled name, as mentioned in his article. "Andrew Webber" is the name of someone different (the only incoming link is of an unrelated person). Should be deleted to encourage article creation of an actual Andrew Webber. For comparison, this would be as if David George was a redirect to David Lloyd George. —AFreshStart (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: To allow the other article to take the name. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:41, 28 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 06:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dog Section → Police dog  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Huh? Steel1943 (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As in K-9 unit, which also redirects there. Havradim leaf a message 02:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one make sense and is clear in what it refers to, but the nominated redirect isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. And it's a bit vague, considering it could refer to a section dedicated to dogs or dog items, like in a pet store. Steel1943 (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what about military canine units with military working dogs ? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too vague per Steel1943 Bonoahx (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, too ambiguous. Cavalryman (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:17, 30 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! 02:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dogs as our pets → Dog#Pets  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The use of the word "our" in the title makes the redirect both vague (who is "our"), and also makes the redirect read like the title of a book, film, etc. In addition, the title without "our", Dogs as pets, exists and is a redirect that targets the same target as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This page started life in 2006 as a sub-stub article but if reverted to would be speedily deletable under A10 as duplicating the current target so there are no issues with RfD deleting that article content. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's an uncommon search term, but anyone using it will arrive at exactly the content they are looking for so it's harmless. As far as I can tell, there is no notable media with this title. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. I don't think there's any other interpretation of "ours" other than referring to humans which makes sense. A7V2 (talk) 04:26, 31 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 withdrawn. Redirect was valid but initially had no mention within the article. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Virginia Madison → Sarah Ann Brock Putnam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Subject is not, nor ever was, named 'Virginia Madison', and there is no mention of the name in the article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redirect was created on same day as the article, by same person. Putnam was born in Madison County, Virginia but that make no sense for a redirect. MB 02:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: When I read the redirect, I thought it said Virginia Madsen. Steel1943 (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, subject wrote under the pseudonym of Virginia Madison^[1] per Encylopedia Virginia, which at least seems to be a WP:RS, although it cites other sources as well. TartarTorte 13:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment perhaps this should be mentioned in the article then? Otherwise the redirect doesn't make any sense. —AFreshStart (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added a mention to the pen name and the ref to the article and will withdraw the discussion. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:36, 29 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.