Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 30, 2017.

Black Cloud (Pink Floyd song)[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Pink Floyd song, so misleading in categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Famous web search engine[edit]

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. I'll echo the previous closer that it'd be a good idea to add information about the phrase. -- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Google isn't the only famous web search engine. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 23:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Has anything changed since Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 31#Famous web search engine? I assume that Google Search is still missing information about the company's efforts to protect their trademarks, which is the section that would explain the relevance of this redirect. Flow234, the meaning isn't "this is the only search engine that happens to be famous". This is a nickname specifically for Google Search, from back in the days when their lawyers were desperately trying to stop people from saying that they "googled" stuff. So some sources struck back at them by refusing to name the search engine, and instead would say things like "A session with a famous web search engine shows that..." or "Queries to a famous web search engine reveal that..." If you search for the exact quoted phrase using the FWSE in question, you will find quite a few such instances. Other sources, such as this book, provide the nickname and then specify the brand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unless there's a web engine brand called Famous, but I don't see that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Angus, this isn't about a search engine that happens to be famous. This generic-sounding nickname is used very specifically and exclusively to mean Google Search in this news source, this book, and many other reliable sources. There are 24 hits at Google Scholar on the exact, quoted phrase. It would be nice if the article was expanded to include information about the trademark and the related disputes, but the incompleteness of the article doesn't change the verifiable facts.
      Also, we probably should have pinged everyone who participated in the previous discussion: Rubbish computer, Qwertyus, Ivanvector, Pahazzard, and Thryduulf, as anyone who participated last time might like to have their say again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The New Scientist article is one of the few instances where it uses Famous Web Search Engine in caps, although that caps case isn't up for RFD. The phrase seems to be attributed to Google in a manner like the moniker "He who must not be named". The other scientific journals refer to it as a description of what a Google search engine is, but it could be more like "a famous movie star". Here is a case where it is used generically or referring to others besides Google: [1] and this [2] [3] [4] [5] It may be worth making a "redirects here" for this if you really need this to stick to Google, and then hatnote to web search engine. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again per WhatamIdoin - this is/was not a descriptive name but a nickname specifically for Google (c.f. another place), the same reason it was kept last time. The only reason no to keep this as is would be if the phrase has since been used for other search engines besides google - and nobody seems to be suggesting that it has. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there is evidence that the combination of "famous web search engine" refers specifically to Google. feminist 16:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems nothing has changed since the previous discussion. My suggestion to incorporate information about these phrases into the target article hasn't been taken; I still think it would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; while Google is the most famous search engine, it isn't the only famous search engine. PCN02WPS 21:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it is the only one called (not described as) "Famous web search engine". Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete as the phrase appears to be used as a euphemism for Google. Wherever it ends up getting targeted, a hatnote to List of search engines is a good idea. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added {{R from non-neutral name}}. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Die Hardest[edit]

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) – Uanfala 19:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Relisting two items left over from a much larger RfD, which primarily contained redirects from proposed film projects to actors attached to them. These two titles do not fit into that general pattern. I actually thought that the third Die Hard film was promoted for a time as "Die Hardest", so I would keep these. bd2412 T 21:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: I don't have a problem with Die Hardest being kept/retargeted if a certain film or films were promoted as such. They were included because they were created around the same time as those other redirects by Captain Assassin! and there was no mention of a film titled "Die Hardest" at the target. He has a history of creating dubious film redirects in order to claim "credit" when a redirect is overwritten with an article. In fact, Die Hardest was originally created as a redirect to Die Hard With a Vengeance (Die Hard 3) in 2010. Captain Assassin! moved that redirect to Die Hardest (2015 film) in anticipation of a film by that name being released in 2015, so he could get the credit for the "Die Hardest" film if it were to enter production instead of Sieckanddestroy. If this is to be kept, the original author should have the credit they deserve, so I undeleted the original edit from Die Hardest (2015 film) and history merged it into Die Hardest. -- Tavix (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they're looking for the next film in the franchise, this would help. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in 2013 the working title for the next installment of this series supposedly had the working title Die Hardest, although more recently it seems to be called Die Hard: Year One. Still I think the speculation makes it a valid redirect to the film series article, until the film is actually made. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that they've considered that as a working title for more than one installment (assuming die hard 3 was first considered for that), maybe they've secured the copyright for the name? Regardless, this is enough to keep it as a useful search term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Frencisc Cynewīse[edit]

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 Frencisc Cynewīse; retarget Francland to Francia as there's no consensus to delete. -- Tavix (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

These are redirects from translations of "French Republic" and "France" respectively into Old English - a language with no association to modern France. They were very briefly discussed as part of a a large batch nomination of many foreign language redirects to France - the only person to express an opinion about them was Uanfala who said "The Old English ones (Francland, Frencisc Cynewīse), if kept at all, had better be retargeted to a historically more appropriate article." I'm not sure what a historically more appropriate article would be as the historical connection between England and France is Anglo Norman not Anglo Saxon - the mixing of the Norman and Saxon languages produced Middle English not Old English. For these reasons I'm recommending delete.
The other participants in last year's discussion were Gorthian (the nominator) and AngusWOOF, it was closed by Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Frencisc Cynewīse as it appears to be found only in Anglo-Saxon dictionaries. Haven't looked into the second one. – Uanfala (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget bothFrancland to Francia which was known as Frankland. I think the Anglo-Saxon redirect is fine given the historic relationships between Francia and bordering Germanic peoples such as the Anglo-Saxons. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with that regarding "Frencisc Cynewīse" as that translates to "French Republic" - Francia was not a republic and so that would be misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mostly relisting to allow discussion of potentially retargeting Francland.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Indians of All Tribes (disambiguation)[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect. I have revised the target page into a redirect per WP:TWODABS, making this a double redirect. Ibadibam (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete housekeeping as the format is going to be twodabs going forward and the second one is United Indians of All Tribes. Not likely to cover more than two at this point. United Indians of All Tribes is also a PTM. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template Wikipedia[edit]

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 as unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cross namespace redirect without sufficient rationale. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Thediamondmincart[edit]

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 deleted, R3. -- Tavix (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling of "The Diamond Minecart" Maproom (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:No source[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 14#Template:No source

List of personalities on NFL Nework[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article created with very unlikely typo, and shortly thereafter moved to correct spelling. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Surprisingly this typo lasted in the article name for 5 months before being corrected, and correction was 10 years ago, which are both too long in my to support a G6 housekeep speedy deletion. I'd support a G7, but as the page author and page mover (both the same user) has not edited since 2013 it's likely this will just have to run its course. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete housekeeping. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bankruptcy in China/version 2[edit]

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 move without redirect to Bankruptcy in the PRC, to preserve history. (non-admin closure) feminist 00:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it appears that the content of the most mature version, a simple list of the section headings of a Chinese statute and dates that it came into effect, is still in use in the merged article only slightly modified. It would seem to me we need to keep this history for attribution, then. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without redirect to a plausible title per Ivanvector's research. Bankruptcy in the PRC is available, for example. -- Tavix (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without redirect Per Ivanvector and Tavix. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Archie Comics imprint publictions[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deletion. Ridiculously improbable typo (note spelling mistake in "publictions". Jason Quinn (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unlikely typo. Someone typing for this term would find the properly-spelled one, so this isn't helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 02:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unhelpful. Messes up the search system which does a better job of understanding what we mean. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lussemburgo[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. This is the Italian for Luxembourg, and it is an immigrant language there, but one of many, and there is no otherwise significant connection I've found. The page does get quite a few hits, but as all the google results are clearly in an Italian context I think it is most likely that people are looking for the Italian Wikipedia article rather than the English one. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 02:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. PCN02WPS 21:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Belgio[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 14#Belgio

Frakkland[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are redirects to France from Icelandic and Finnish respectively, languages that are not mentioned at France or Languages of France and which have no strong association with French or France that I have found. There was a nomination of many foreign language redirects to France last year, but these two do not appear to have been included in that discussion. I believe these should be deleted per WP:FORRED. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 02:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dutch constellations[edit]

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. There have been sources provided more or less attesting usage of "Dutch constellations". Perhaps that's enough to alleviate the original research concern, but I don't see consensus either way here. -- Tavix (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence is presented that the term "Dutch constellations" is or was in use. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify the redirect target is currently a section within Constellation article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See for example National Geographic Encyclopaedia of Space, University of Michigan Astronomy Department, possibly reliable website. Google also tells me it is in these three books, but previews are not available [6] [7] [8]. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This term appears to specifically apply to constellations mapped out and codified by Dutch astronomers. The current situation isn't right, since the main 'Constellation' article isn't narrowed to any ethnicity and/or nationality, but maybe that page could be expanded or some spin-off article created. This website groups together twelve new constellations from Frederick de Houtman as such. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to apply to specific constellations in the southern hemisphere that are not visible from the northern hemisphere and so were unknown to western astronomy untl the Dutch explorers mapped them; and to a superset including these. So the narrow grouping is not ethnicity or nationality based but geographic. We do have Category:Dutch constellations Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The latter is not relevant. If the redirect is to be deleted, so is the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That doesn't necessarily follow. A redirect can target a category if that is the best target (and it might be here), and you will need to get consensus at CfD to delete the category. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the other hand, the existence of a category is not an argument in keeping the redirect. We shouldn't have circle reasonings. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dutch explorers and celestial cartographers were undisputedly the first to systematically observe and chart the largely unknown far sounthern skies (more than 150 years before Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille's expedition). This was a milestone in the history of celestial cartography. For several centuries, these constellations (invented by the Dutch) were not so fairly called "Bayer's constellations". The Dutch contributions (including Pieter Dirkszoon Keyser, Frederick de Houtman, Petrus Plancius, and Jodocus Hondius) are so important, why can not we give them a name that accurately records? Zingvin (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 02:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CoffeeWithMarkets. This seems like OR naming. Chinese constellations appears analogous at first, but that's actually describing a different set of constellations than the Western system. If there were a separate Dutch astronomy, I think we could use this term simply as a descriptive label. But if "Dutch constellations" = "Constellations identified by Dutch people", delete. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just any "Constellations identified by Dutch people" though, it is a specific set of constellations that happens to be named this way. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Secreted protein[edit]

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 Secretory protein. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 11:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever created this redirect appears to have done so on the basis that one of its synonyms is "secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine" (SPARC). However, there are many, many secreted proteins in biology; the term is used synonymously with "secretory protein," for which there is a Wikipedia entry. That's where "Secretory protein" should redirect! Mikalra (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 01:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Northern Netherlands[edit]

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 Dutch Republic. WP:NPASR if anyone disagrees with the new target. (non-admin closure) feminist 00:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is no official region called "Northern Netherlands" nor does it seem to be used for any defineable area. The closest is North Netherlands, which is a NUTS 1 statistical division mentioned at List of regions of the Netherlands as comprising Groningen (province), Friesland and Drenthe but like all the other NUTS 1 regions in the country it has no article and there is no more information than that. I'm unsure whether I favour deletion or retargetting to the list of regions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 01:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dutch Republic. The term is most often used to contrast it with the Southern Netherlands, which is not exactly the same as the current divide between Belgium (or Flanders) and the Netherlands. I have no objection to keeping it as a redirect to the Netherlands either. See e.g. this, this and many other books using the term. Fram (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Netherlands, (Dut/Hol)[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems quite an implausible search term - I can't find any uses of "Dut/Hol" that don't originate with this redirect and the comma before the parenthetical disambiguation makes it even less likely to be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 01:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Labour leader[edit]

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 00:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Leader of the Labour Party per WP:DIFFCAPS, most likely primary topic. --Nevé–selbert 07:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 01:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Damtdm[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this redirect really necessary? This is an incorrect spelling, and the redirect was created by a new user most likely without reading the policies in place. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 01:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unlikely misspelling. PCN02WPS 21:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete created in error recently, so it's too new to attract searches besides this AFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Non-freeware[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 12#Non-freeware

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_30&oldid=1138581940"