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 all as vandalism.  If you see what you consider evidence of good-faith, let me know and I'll undelete them to permit further discussion.  ---- Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It covers the torso and crotch → Bodysuit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not an alternate name for bodysuits. Seems to be part of a string of frivolous redirects created by the same user (see other nominations for today). cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 October 2018 (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 all as vandalism.  If you see what you consider evidence of good-faith, let me know and I'll undelete them to permit further discussion.  ---- Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• One Crapnificent Morning → One Magnificent Morning  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Offensive/derogatory/unencyclopedic redirect. Searching for the term in quotes only leads to one hit: A Wikipedia mirror. Seems to be part of a string of frivolous redirects created by the same user (see other nominations for today). cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:10, 8 October 2018 (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 all as vandalism.  If you see what you consider evidence of good-faith, let me know and I'll undelete them to permit further discussion.  ---- Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• V-guy → Lord Voldemort  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not actually an alternate name for Voldemort. Seems to be part of a string of frivolous redirects created by the same user (see other nominations for today). cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:07, 8 October 2018 (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 all as vandalism.  If you see what you consider evidence of good-faith, let me know and I'll undelete them to permit further discussion.  ---- Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Kids Fattening Center → KFC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Offensive redirect/unencyclopedic. Seems to be part of a string of frivolous redirects created by the same user (see other nominations for today). cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:00, 8 October 2018 (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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ericko → Erico Constantino da Silva  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Couldn't really find any proof that Erico is ever reliably referred to as "Ericko" cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since English Wikipedia lacks significant coverage of anyone actually called Ericko, and there's no reliable sources confirming that it originated as a variant of some other notable name like Eriko or Erick either, so we have nowhere at all to send readers. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 59.149. Google results suggest that someone called Ericko Lim is the most prominent person with this name, but they aen't mentioned anywhere in the encyclopaedia. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2018 (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) feminist (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• BernieSingles → Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Bernie Sanders Dank Meme Singles → Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Most appropriate target for this redirect was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bernie_Singles). No reason to keep a badly spaced variant as a redirect to a related topic Plantdrew (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - the defunct dating site is mentioned in the article, albeit briefly. Even though this is a improperly-spaced variant, it can still aid in navigation, which is what redirects are for. Then again, the redirect has only seen 178 views over the 3+ years of its existence so I'm not too set on keeping it. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm adding Bernie Sanders Dank Meme Singles to this, since they seem to be the same thing. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both and refine to #Spin-offs: I think the two comprehensively-referenced paragraphs in that section are sufficient for these to be useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• If we're keeping BernieSingles, then Bernie Singles should be recreated as a redirect to the same source. Raymond1922 (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2018 (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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Delhi Daredevils former Squad → Template:Delhi Daredevils squad  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

What is the point if a redirect regarding the former squad of a cricket team targets to the current squad of a cricket team (Template:Delhi Daredevils squad) and it is unused? Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. All this redirect does is induce disappointment. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. JZCL 22:40, 17 October 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dbhm → Template:Histmerge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Template:Db-hm → Template:Histmerge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused and the target is not a speedy deletion criterion for it to start with "db". Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For pages like this one, meant for momentary use, one isn't likely to find usage; ((db-g2)) isn't transcluded anywhere right at the moment, for example. Meanwhile, some years ago, this functioned like ((db-g6)) with a history-merge specification, and performing a history merge still requires the use of deletion under G6; this seems harmless at absolute worst, and I'd say it's marginally beneficial because it documents the template's history. Nyttend (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nyttend: The "db-" prefix is meant to be reserved for speedy deletion templates. The target of "db-hm" is not a speedy deletion template. Also, if there is a speedy deletion template where this could be targeted, then it could be targeted to that. "Db" stands for "delete because" so this redirect does not work targeting to a template that is not a speedy deletion template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, the parent ((Histmerge)) previously was a speedy deletion template; in December 2012, when this redirect was created, the template was transcluding Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and it looked like this:

• • • Moreover, five years earlier, its use as a speedy-deletion template had been ratified by Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 19. Now obviously there's since been consensus to repurpose it, but there should be no question that ((dbhm)) and ((db-hm)) were good redirects in late 2012, and they ought to be retained as part of the history. Presumably both appear in existing page histories (which of course don't show up in WhatLinksHere), and having the old revision display the current edition of ((Histmerge)) is better than having it display Template:Db-hm. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nyttend. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2018 (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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 and WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Arche at the 2014 Asian Games → Template:Archery at the 2014 Asian Games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is unlikely to be used as a redirect as this is not a common misspelling of "archery". I don't think there is any point having this redirect and it might have been created in error. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I just created in error due to a typo so can be deleted with no issues. SFB 20:07, 8 October 2018 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Caillou (new media character) → Vyond  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently created redirect for the parody of Caillou as done by GoAnimate, now Vyond. However, it is not mentioned at Vyond article as one of their notable videos. The similar offering The Misadventures of Dora was AFD'ed before. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Should we mention those Caillou Gets Grounded videos on the Vyond article? If we do, can we keep the redirect? Kaithehedgefox (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)kaithehedgefoxKaithehedgefox (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Caillou. Having it read to Vyond is misleading; even if the article did mention the parody character (which it doesn't), the studio didn't create the character and it's not a distinct character from the "real" Caillou. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is conditional on whether a Popular culture and parodies section is created on the Caillou article with the sources provided that would make it notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, "(new media character)" is vague and unhelpful as a disambiguator. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Caillou isn't mentioned in Vyond and Caillou is about a television series (and by extension a television character), not a "new media character". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2018 (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. Awesome title, though! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• List of exclamations by Robin → "Holy..."  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The original list is no longer present at the target, which was supposedly the result of a page move. 99.203.31.17 (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The list is available as an external link at the bottom of the article as with others like Inc. 5000. The article still has useful information. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No such list appears in the target, or in any other article, nor should it. I think it's much more likely that a reader will search for this, find that the article they're taken to doesn't have what they're looking for, experience mild disappointment and go about their day, than that they would find the helpful external link. I don't think the comparison to Inc. 500 quite holds up – a closer parallel would be if we had a redirect called List of people on the Inc. 500, but such a redirect would be inappropriate for the same reason as this one. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Holy (catchphrase) or Holy (snowclone) should be useful to get people to that page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the existence of an external link to a website called "holysmokesbatman.com" is not a good reason to create/keep a redirect. We should redirect only when the content of the Wikipedia article sufficiently covers the redirected title. If the list isn't there, we don't need the redirect. If the list comes back sometime, it's easy to recreate the redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:06, 12 October 2018 (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 Lightworkers Media. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Lightworkers → New Age  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I found this while researching the Lightworker (singular) redirect nominated earlier today. There isn't any suitable target related to the New Age movement I can find, but instead I am proposing a retarget to Lightworkers Media to which almost all the uses on Wikipedia relate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am familiar with some new age movement people calling themselves "light workers" but did not know of the Mark Burnett and Roma Downey ministry. It's possible that it's not notable enough internationally to be the main redirect target? —PaleoNeonate – 08:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Lightworkers Media per nom. (Based on that organisation's website, it seems to now be known simply as LightWorkers and should perhaps be moved to that title.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2018 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺 → Gothic language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention in article Abote2 (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep this is (a possible) endonym for the Gothic language, but it seems that this is disputed (see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 August 17#𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺) and a quick look at google suggests there is no attested endonym so this would be a reconstruction. Alternatively, retarget to List of language names where this is mentioned, but there isn't a subsection to anchor this to so people would have to search. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; it is in use, and it has been in use there for a long time: if you look at the left sidebar, you'll see that this is the text that displays for a Gothic babel link. Any text that's used on a babel sidebar ought to exist as a redirect to the language's name (or as a disambiguation entry), since someone ought to be able to copy that string into the search bar and easily find what it is. Nyttend (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• PS, if you wish to dispute the use of this term per the WP:RDL discussion, I'd recommend that you dispute its use on the sidebar, not here. I'm not sure where to do that, but if you want to do that, I can work with you on doing it. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The place you would need to make an argument to change the name of the language in the interwiki links would presumably be the Gothic Wikipedia's equivalent of the village pump. Following consensus there you would, I guess, have to make a request on meta or Phrabricator. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2018 (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. We can create a new redirect if information about this proposed name of a fictional character gets written in the future. (Early closure after relist as there is now full consensus) Deryck C. 13:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Anton Church → List of Arrow characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no character in Arrow called "Anton Church". It was Tobias Church. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are plenty of reliable sources that state this was the working name for the main antagonist in season 5, e.g. [2],[3] so it might be worthy of a sentence in entry for whatever name ended up being used (possibly Adrian Chase, but I'm not sure). If that was added then this redirect would be best kept and refined to that section. However, adding to the complication is that there is a filmmaker called Anton Church - at first glance they don't seem notable, but I haven't looked in detail. All the entries the search engine finds are unrelated to either - being about churches dedicated to a Saint Anton (the same person as Saint Anthony?). Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as astonishing redirect per Thryduulf. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Deryck Chan: If nothing has been added then I guess my recommendation is delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per WP:RCAPS UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a perfectly normal and perfectly harmless ((R from other capitalisation)). A duplicate article has been created at this title once, suggesting that it's actually a more plausible search term than the average allcaps redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RCAPS, there is no affinity between this capitalization and the target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per page history, Thryduulf and general harmlessness. JZCL 22:38, 17 October 2018 (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) Iffy★Chat -- 10:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Charm (physics) → Charm quark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous term. I've dabbed the only use of the redirect in an article (which happened to be the wrong one of the two topics). Looks like WP:INCDAB to me, so should target Charm#Science and technology Widefox; talk 13:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect more people are familiar with Charm quark than Charm (quantum number) but I'm certainly not objecting to a retarget as you suggest. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the comments below I'm less certain what is the best option, so I'm changing to neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no objection to the proposed retargeting. bd2412 T 22:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be OK with a retarget to Charm (quantum number). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the more correct one in terms of 1. physics 2. not a WP:PTM, but I'd guess a) the quark is a more popular read. Is doesn't really matter as there's no need to use the redirect as it's ambiguous, so targeting the dab (as it's INCDAB in the absence of a decision on a "primary topic") seems pragmatic. Widefox; talk 00:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my assumption was right - the quark gets an order of magnitude more views.[4] I still think INCDAB is better per balancing 1. 2. vs a) User:Headbomb would you be OK targeting the dab? Widefox; talk 00:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as primary physics topic, and hatnote to the Charm (disambiguation). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and hatnote per AngusWOOF. It's pretty common to just refer to the individual quarks without using "quark" all the time, and that's the primary physics topic by far. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and hatnote Per AngusWOOF. As a non-physics expert the first thing I think of (and I think most people would) is the quark. Assuming there are no other uses of "charm" in physics then I think this is best. JZCL 22:36, 17 October 2018 (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.