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 retarget to TK as an uncontroversial suggestion. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

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

This is also used as the common journalistic abbreviation for to kome, the common spelling of what we cover at to come (publishing). I'm not sure we have a WP:PTOPIC here for this bigram, so I'd propose that this be turned into a disambiguation page. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 22:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to TK, a disambiguation page, where both of the topics the nom mentions are listed, as per the course with many other capital-lowercase two-letter titles. People could be looking for any of the topics mentioned on that page, and it'd WP:ASTONISH them to land at the one about the software. Turning this title into a separate disambiguation page would be pretty unnecessary and superfluous, especially with the topics already listed as mentioned above. Regards, SONIC ⁶⁷⁸ 22:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  I had neglected to search directly for TK before making this nom; I agree that Tk should point at TK. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 23:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to TK per Sonic678. A7V2 ( talk) 22:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 Restore. With no prejudice to listing at AfD. Jay 💬 07:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• NyQuil → Cold medicine  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Much undue weight (and other poor form) to redirect NyQuil to an article where it is only mentioned as being used to cook chicken on social media. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 07:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Vicks per discussion of DayQuil. Should not be deleted as there are a lot of articles that links to this redirect. Timothytyy ( talk) 13:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Vicks per discussion of DayQuil and Timothytyy. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk) 16:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Happy with retargeting to Vicks (and change the link there to bolded text), however I think potentially this article should be restored since there doesn't appear to have been any discussion and yet it was repeatedly and disruptively BLARed then restored and then finally protected by Fish and karate in its redirect state (claiming consensus but not citing any discussion) rather than being discussed at AFD as recommended in WP:BLAR (maybe the wording was different then). A7V2 ( talk) 00:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget. The discussion at Talk:NyQuil#WP:PHARMMOS has 3 redirect, 2 keep, and 2 editors who had already restored the article but did not participate in the discussion. The style guide is only an essay belonging to a WikiProject, and is intended for brands of, for example, paracetamol; it's debatable whether it applies to brands of cold medicine which is various groups of medication used for the same or similar purpose. Protection should be removed, as it's probably no longer necessary, although better sources would be needed to demonstrate notability of the brand, and most of the categorisations of Cold medicine should be moved to the redirects. Peter James ( talk) 18:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks, I didn't notice that discussion, and have struck part of my statement. I definitely don't think it is enough to argue there was consensus to BLAR, however. A7V2 ( talk) 22:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Vicks where it is discussed.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 10:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore Article was redirected with inadequate consensus and no AfD; in particular, concerns about standalone notability were not addressed. The source in the article about the NyQuil chicken challenge by also supports notability for this brand. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist for relisting together with DayQuil below, since consensus on both discussions is still up in the air…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Restore both articles. The pages were blanked and redirected after a "discussion" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 118#DayQuil involving two editors and lasting 36 minutes from the topic being opened to the "Done" comment (the talk pages were notified 8-9 minutes after that). No attempt was made to solicit comments from other editors or notify anyone on the talkpage of either of the affected articles that a discussion was taking place, and the admin who redirected them edit warred to implement this non-consensus rather than following WP:BRD. He then threatened to block [1] an editor he was edit warring with for edit warring. They should be restored, followed by a proper discussion on whether to keep them as independent articles, merge them, or WP:BLAR them again (and if so, what the target should be). The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 20:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore article per The Wordsmith and others above, without prejudice to AfD, as discussion on performing the BLAR was insufficient. I would also like to add that I tried to restore the article and close this discussion (consistent with the other RfD on DayQuil below), but I couldn't since the redirect is fully protected. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Nominator vote: tentatively restore as a contested BLAR. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 01:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 restore article without prejudice to AfD. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• DayQuil → Cold medicine  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Was BLARed many years ago. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 21:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Vicks which mentions this product. Lithopsian ( talk) 21:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Vicks per Lithopsian. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk) 07:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per above. Timothytyy ( talk) 12:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• As with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 1#NyQuil, retarget to Vicks and change the link there to bold text seems fine. Again, I wonder if this should be restored given the minimal discussion (at least I could find a link on the talkpage for this one, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 118#DayQuil) involving few editors and very questionable if consensus is in favour of redirecting, surrounding the WP:BLAR edit warring. Should have been discussed at AFD. A7V2 ( talk) 00:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget or restore; the guideline is only an essay and is intended for brands that can be redirected to articles such as paracetamol, not to general articles such as cold medicine which covers many different things. Peter James ( talk) 19:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Vicks where it is discussed.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 10:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore Article was redirected with inadequate consensus and no AfD. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore: If turning an article into a redirect is contentious, consensus now dictates to take it to AfD. I don't really mind if it stays as is, but regardless it should be restored in some capacity and then the content of the restored article can be discussed to see if it should be its own article or have a different outcome. Tartar Torte 18:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to Vicks or restore article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• As nominator, I would personally restore the article for now since the BLAR is clearly contested. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 07:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore both articles. The pages were blanked and redirected after a "discussion" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 118#DayQuil involving two editors and lasting 36 minutes from the topic being opened to the "Done" comment (the talk pages were notified 8-9 minutes after that). No attempt was made to solicit comments from other editors or notify anyone on the talkpage of either of the affected articles that a discussion was taking place, and the admin who redirected them edit warred to implement this non-consensus rather than following WP:BRD. He then threatened to block [2] an editor he was edit warring with for edit warring. They should be restored, followed by a proper discussion on whether to keep them as independent articles, merge them, or WP:BLAR them again (and if so, what the target should be). The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 20:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 disambiguate. Jay 💬 06:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• HQL → Jakarta Persistence Query Language#Hibernate Query Language  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unclear redirect. There appears to be more information on this topic provided at Hibernate (framework)#Hibernate Query Language (HQL). At the very least needs to be disambiguated, as HQL is also the IATA airport code for Tashkurgan Khunjerab Airport. Johnj1995 ( talk) 21:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Dabify per nom -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Dabify (drafted) since there doesn't seem to be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT here; GBooks hits are mostly about Hibernate Query Language, but GNews hits are mostly about the Maryland handgun qualification license or the company with the NYSE ticker symbol HQL. 59.149.117.119 ( talk) 00:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 and retarget. All four redirects now target Old and New Lights, as participants agreed that this article is the most plausible target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Auld and New Licht → Old and New Lights  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Auld Licht → Old and New Lights  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Old Lichts → Anti-Burgher  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• New Licht → Anti-Burgher  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

WP:RLOTE, I propose deletion. Veverve ( talk) 12:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I think deletion on the ground that the Scots language is distinct from the English language in England is inadequate as a reason. For example when I consult the Oxford English Dictionary, under "old light" there are "auld licht" examples given, by J. M. Barrie and T. S. Eliot. At worst it is an affectation to write "Auld Licht" when you could write "Old Light", but I see no good reason to delete redirects when "Auld Licht" for example as a search term is plausible enough. Charles Matthews ( talk) 12:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Charles Matthews: then which article should those four target? Veverve ( talk) 12:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Veverve: For the sake of rationalisation, to Old and New Lights. Though that as an article is not great. Charles Matthews ( talk) 12:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep per rationale above. scope_creep ^Talk 13:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep I think deletion on the ground that the Scots language is distinct from the English language in England is inadequate as a reason. Are going to change the article name of Auld Lang Syne too, as that is in Scottish too? The Banner  talk 13:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ The Banner and Scope creep: again: do you want to keep those as is, or do you want to retarget? The current two targets should be reduced to one, for consistency's sake. Veverve ( talk) 18:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as is. Redirects are here to aid readers to find what they are looking for. The Banner  talk 18:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply

    • Yes, and I do not see any reader typing "Auld and New Licht" looking for a target different from "Old Lichts" and "New Licht"; and so on for all four of those redirects. All should point to the same target. What is the rationale for keeping them separated? Veverve ( talk) 19:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep and align definitely do not delete; a smattering of Scots is inevitable in any English-language discussion of Scottish history. All the stated redirects should target the same article. Both Burghers and Anti-Burgher factions of the First Secession had Auld and New Licht divisions so it is incorrect for any to redirect to Anti-Burgher. For now it would seem Old and New Lights is the least bad redirect target but with a bit of work First Secession would be more specific. A general reorganisation of the contents of all the aforementioned articles would be best. jnestorius^{( talk)} 17:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input, as some participants are visibly dissatisfied with the status quo…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Not delete. This spelling is used in certain English dialects, particularly (and historically) in Scotland, and WP:RLOTE is only for non-English languages. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 22:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Red-tailed hawk: and do you think all four redirects should have the same target? If yes, which one should it be? Veverve ( talk) 08:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Yes. Old and New Lights seems most reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 08:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 disambiguate. Jay 💬 08:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Template:Gd → Template:Guadalcanal Diary  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

confusing, too many uses for "gd" including commons:template:gd Frietjes ( talk) 17:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Frietjes are you in favor of disambiguating? Or are you actually proposing deletion? CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I would say just delete it per the deletion of template:fr and others. Frietjes ( talk) 15:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Disambiguate per nom. Searching onwiki reveals several other possible meanings, namely {{ IPA-gd}}, {{ Convair/GD aircraft}}, {{ User in Grenada}}, {{ User gd}}, {{ Fb gd}}, {{ Lang-gd}}, and {{ User Ot-gd}}. Duckmather ( talk) 02:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• If we end up disambiguating, I'd also add {{ g-d}}. That's what I assumed this would be. -- BDD ( talk) 19:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nom is actually proposing deletion, though participants are suggesting to disambiguate…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Disambiguate using the draft I have provided. From Bassie f ( his talk page) 20:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 💬 16:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Nucleosidase → Purine nucleoside phosphorylase  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Please delete redirect, the target article does not mention "Nucleosidase" anywhere so the redirect is not helpful to a reader. (Reason 8 above) MaryMO (AR) ( talk) 15:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

It is a nucleoside ase. Is that a nucleosidase? Invasive Spices ( talk) 17:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:REDLINK. It seems to be a category of enzymes as there are a lot of nucleosidase wiki articles. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Shouldn't it become a disambig or a list of them in that case? Invasive Spices ( talk) 16:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Nah, the other enzyme articles are articles rather than dab's or lists. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 10:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Lenticel. While the article it redirects to is a nucleosidase it does not represent the enzyme class. ― Syn path 08:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 💬 12:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Samuel Moore (Australian politican) → Samuel Edward Moore  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

There is another page, a disambiguation page, called 'Samuel Moore (Australian politician)'. If you search it in the search bar, two come up. This one should be deleted. Compusolus ( talk) 10:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. This seems like a reasonable way to disambiguate Moore, and it would make sense from a searching perspective. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 22:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I can't read. Retarget per below. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 01:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note that this is misspelled "politican". The correctly spelled version is a dab page Samuel Moore (Australian politician). Either retarget there or delete due to the misspelling. A7V2 ( talk) 22:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I missed that too. This page should probably be deleted based on that misspelling also. Compusolus ( talk) 08:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete as an WP:RDAB-ish and WP:COSTLY issue due to the spelling error in the disambiguator. The title with the correct spelling, Samuel Moore (Australian politician), exists and is currently a redirect to Samuel Moore#Politics after I merged the content in Samuel Moore (Australian politician) into Samuel Moore#Politics. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 Paramount Television. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Closet Killer → Paramount Television Studios  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This and related redirects like The Closet Killer, should be retargeted back to Paramount Television (the original target), since the "Closet Killer" phrase, isn’t mentioned in the current target, but it is my suggested target's former logo. From Bassie f ( his talk page) 08:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I request that related redirects like Split Box, and Dark Mountain (logo) which also currently target Paramount Television Studios, to be discussed in this discussion. From Bassie f ( his talk page) 09:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

And also Wilshire Court Productions and RTV News Inc. From Bassie f ( his talk page) 09:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Why isn’t someone else replying to this discussion. From Bassie f ( his talk page) 08:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• AIDS crisis → HIV/AIDS in the United States  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not the only AIDS crisis. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS. Randi Moth ( talk) 20:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS as plausible search term -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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} 03:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comida → Spanish cuisine  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This is the Spanish word for "food", used also for "lunch" in Spanish-speaking countries - but there is no reason for this to target Spanish cuisine ("Lunch (el almuerzo or simply la comida, literally meaning "the food"), the large midday meal in Spain ...") rather than Mexican cuisine ("The main meal of the day in Mexico is the "comida", meaning 'meal' in Spanish.") If this redirect points anywhere it should be to Food, but I suggest that we are better off without it. Pam D 12:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Disambiguate. You mentioned that comida can refer to several cuisines. We should make Comida a disambiguation page which lists the possible meanings. Mast303 ( talk) 18:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator. Per WP:PTM and WP:DABDIC, disambiguation entries for Mexican cuisine, Spanish cuisine, Portuguese cuisine, Brazilian cuisine, and lunch would not be appropriate, and there's nothing else by the name "comida" (e.g. book or movie titles) to disambiguate. 59.149.117.119 ( talk) 12:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Lunch; it can be mentioned there. Lunch#North America contradicts Mexican cuisine#Food and society - or is comida known as almuerzo in some areas? The only other meanings I can find are "Chukchi Offshore Monitoring In Drilling Area (COMIDA)" in a reference in the Chukchi Sea article, and a record label Comida Records mentioned in Farside (band). For "La Comida" there is a restaurant mentioned in Michael Morton (restaurateur) and the name of something mentioned in the Germán Garmendia article. Peter James ( talk) 13:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  I don;'t think that would be helpful to most readers: "Comida" isn't only lunch (and isn't mentioned in Lunch): see in Buffet: "In Brazil, comida a quilo or comida por quilo—literally, "food by [the] kilo"—restaurants are common." Pam D 20:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  It isn't currently mentioned there, but it's mentioned in the cuisine articles as a word for lunch, and terms in other languages are mentioned there so there is no reason this is not; its meaning can be explained there. "Comida a quilo" or similar would be a partial title match and wouldn't have an entry in a disambiguation page, just as food and food (disambiguation) don't link to fast food. Peter James ( talk) 16:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment: See Wiktionary where in four languages the first meaning given for "Comida" is "food", ahead of "meal", "lunch" and/or "dinner". Note also that in both Spanish and Portuguese wikipedias "Comida" is a redirect to "Alimento", ie "Food". Pam D 09:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:RFOREIGN; common term with no affinity for Spanish. Plantdrew ( talk) 16:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Generic term that fails WP:FORRED and is ambiguous among multiple languages. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 09:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. No proper target that says what the term means. However I don't mind disambiguation if we have a decent dab draft. Jay 💬 09:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. The proposed target Heresy in Christianity was not considered as it did not have the list of heresies, although it had lists in several sections. The proposed Category:Heresy in Christianity target was discouraged as well. Jay 💬 06:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• List of Christian heresies → List of heresies in the Catholic Church  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

On top of the fact that what constitues a heresy depends on the denomination one belongs to, the current target is misleading as Christianity is not the Catholic Church.

Therefore, I propose a retarget to Heresy in Christianity. Veverve ( talk) 07:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Heresy in Christianity does not have a list of heresies, but Category:Heresy in Christianity does. Retarget this to Category:Heresy in Christianity. Duckmather ( talk) 00:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  It could also be an acceptable retarget, albeit not a great one. Veverve ( talk) 08:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete There's no list in the Heresy in Christianity article, and the category doesn't function as a list. Peter James ( talk) 13:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per Veverve. I don't like a retarget to a category here, and the Heresy in Christianity article does contain lists of Christian heresies in several sections, so it seems reasonable enough. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 15:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. (And note WP:NOTDUPE: "Redirects of list articles to categories are highly discouraged".) Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 11:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I would also support deletion. Veverve ( talk) 11:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete If it had to be retargeted then Heresy in Christianity seems like the best place for it, but I don't see much value in retaining it. Not a plausible search term, and the proposed target does not include a list. Redirecting to a category seems like a bad plan absent a compelling reason. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 17:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).