Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 19, 2017.

U. S. security[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 29#U. S. security

Impact![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 Impact. (non-admin closure) feminist 02:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RM at Talk:Impact! (TV series)#Requested move 1 October 2017 indicates that the current target is not the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. If Impact! Miniatures is determined to be primary, then "Impact!" should redirect there; otherwise it should redirect to Impact. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom as both are mentioned there and there are more options in case someone is looking for titles with Impact in it. Notice in the web site for the wrestling site they don't even use IMPACT! consistently, preferring to call it IMPACT, like "Classic IMPACT matches, PPVs and more!" . It's mainly in the logo. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 24 October 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.

Yan Laplante[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY; previous precedent to delete these types of redirects Joeykai (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unlike most of these where a non-notable player is mentioned in several places and there is no one good place for a redirect, this one has the problem in that there are zero places where this guy is mentioned. Someone searching him is not going to find any information on him anywhere on Wikipedia, so a redirect anywhere is unhelpful. -- Tavix (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yet another of the hundreds of these created by an editor eventually placed under a community ban from creating new redirects, because of such shenanigans to bump up his new article creation count, this is a classic XY: presuming this means Yan-Pavel Laplante (there was more than one hockey-playing "Yan Laplante"), this redirect makes less sense even by XY standards than to any of the four junior teams or the three professional teams for which he's played so far. Ravenswing 20:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:43, 19 October 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.

Augusta Ubiorum[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 since the term is now mentioned at the target article. The late suggestion to retarget to Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium has been rejected since it is still unclear whether the term was used during the Roman Empire and because the term is not used there. -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete since this term is mentioned not even once within the target article. Tuchiel (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim to be an expert on our policies for redirects, but it seems, based on this search, that this was one of the Latin names used for Cologne at a time when most scholarly works in Western Europe were written in Latin, so maybe the solution to the nominator's concern is to mention the name in the article about Cologne, rather than to delete the redirect. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this was the Roman name for Cologne. [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was in fact more than one name used in Latin for Cologne, so I would have thought that any serious encyclopedia should acknowledge more than one. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: What exactly is that link supposed to prove? I can't see any mention of the term in question there.--Tuchiel (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's an entry in that dictionary [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And, if you would just glance at the search results that I linked above, you would see many more such entries such as [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. I could go on but I have better things to do than read more search results that you can easily find for yourself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; old names, especially classical names, definitely deserve redirects. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...but only if the article actually mentions the term–the IP editor above is absolutely right–because without that it's an unsourced claim, and might well end up back here eventually. So in my opinion Keep if the article is edited to include it, else Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of the points of WP:RFD#DELETE says anything about the redirect name having to be mentioned in the target article? I only mentioned doing that because the nominator seemed to be concerned by it, not because it is a reason to delete the redirect. If the nominator or you or anyone else wants this mentioned at Cologne then go ahead, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability. Of course it's relevant to the discussion. The whole point of the discussion is whether or not "Augusta Ubiorum" is related in any way to "Cologne". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That has been clearly demonstrated above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as one of several Latin names used for Cologne, a city in the part of the world where for well over a millennium Latin was the dominant written language. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally agree with Shhhnotsoloud: Either the term should show up at least somewhere in the target article or otherwise the RD should be deleted. By the way, I would appeal to add this in fact as a redirect deletion criterion in general…--Cleph (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone who wants this name to be mentioned at Cologne is perfectly capable of adding it there on the basis of the sources listed above. You knew where the edit tab was when you edited this discussion, so you should know where it is in the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects are cheap and I, for one, can't keep these "Augusta of X tribe" names straight. I have now slipped it into the article parenthetically, with a clear ref. in English from the 86. IP's list. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium instead. —Kusma (t·c) 09:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the late suggestion to retarget to Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium ("the Roman colony in the Rhineland from which the German city of Cologne developed.") is worthy of further consideration. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The new target may be okay, except that it needs to be integrated into the article first. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The change of target depends on whether this is a name that was used in the period of the Roman Empire, or was used in the subsequent millennium or so when this was a German city but Latin was the dominant written language in Western Europe. I pass on that question, because it's above my pay grade. I suspect that @Yngvadottir: may be able to answer it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:53, 22 October 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.

The Nuisance Commitee[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. Note that The Nuisance Committee and Nuisance Committee have been created. -- Tavix (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add to history as the business developed a PAC and card decks as part of its promotions which made news, especially the billboard: [9] [10] [11] [12] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized it's spelled wrong, so recommend Rename to Nuisance Committee first without leaving the redirect for the poorly spelled result. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the related section to Cards_Against_Humanity#Political_involvement_and_the_Nuisance_Committee with references. Feel free to expand. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 19 October 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.

2006 Louisville vs. West Virginia football game[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 2006 Louisville Cardinals football team#West Virginia. There is a clear consensus that the current target is not the correct one. Out of the 2 candidates put forward as a new target, consensus seems to be that they are equally valid, but despite this there is clearly no consensus to delete. Therefore I arbitrarily picked one as a new target and added a hatnote pointing to the other page. This is not an ideal solution, but this discussion has been open for 3 months without consensus; I don't see how relisting it yet again would help. Aervanath (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in target article shoy (reactions) 16:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this game doesn't have any particular notability that it needs its own redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The game was notable. WV was undefeated and ranked #3 before being upset by Louisville. The more natural redirect is to 2006 West Virginia Mountaineers football team#Louisville, where this game is actually discussed. I suggest redirecting there instead of the current generic redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An equally apt redirect would be 2006 Louisville Cardinals football team#West Virginia where this game is also discussed in detail. Cbl62 (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Cbl62's proposed redirect targets
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 05:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to either 2006 Louisville Cardinals football team#West Virginia or 2006 West Virginia Mountaineers football team#Louisville and add a hatnote at the target to the summary of the game on the other team's article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yep, that's WP:XY alright. If the game is truly seen as notable, an independent article could be attempted. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find this !vote astonishingly contemptuous to readers - "We have content about this game in two places, but we're going to go out of our way to make it difficult for you to find either of them because I don't like that it isn't covered in only one place primarily." Sorry, but that's the exact opposite of what we should be doing here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not ideal, but I prefer something that draws attention to the (purported) need for an individual article than arbitrarily picking one or the other place. Do you want to adjudicate between arguing Louisville and West Virginia boosters? --BDD (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the article with the more significant coverage per above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK if the game is notable per Cbl62 and WP:XY; how would you decide to retarget to one team over the other? That's why there's a search engine to show both articles. -- Tavix (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the articles are equally comprehensive then it really doesn't matter which you pick, otherwise choose the most comprehensive one. This is not XY, that is for where you have two different subjects, equally likely, covered in separate places. In this case we have one subject covered in two places, the target is not ambiguous. The search results, when people actually get to see them (and are not just told there is no article by this name, would you like to create one) aren't actually helpful in this case as neither the snippets shown nor the article titles give any indication that the article covers the subject being searched for. I'm also not sure why you think a redlink would be better than simply pointing to the coverage we already have? Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simply put, I have faith in our readers that they can interpret search results to get relevant information everywhere we have it, over being arbitrarily being forced into one of them. -- Tavix (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your faith in readers is good to hear, but no matter what their ability (and there will be a wide range), but even the best of them will not able to find the articles without seeing relevant search results. Even seeing any search results is far from guaranteed, let alone relevant ones (which I failed to find yesterday, despite having more than a decade of experience with searching Wikipedia). Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Content on this game exists, but in two articles, which is not covered by WP:XY, which is limited to cases where the topic a reader using the search term cannot be identified because of ambiguity. Here, we know exactly what is covered, but just have the coverage in two places. Both look about the same in quality, but I'm leaning towards redirecting it towards the Louisville page because it has one more source, was the home team [13], and was the team that won the upset victory. A hatnote to the other could be added. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While the first sentence at WP:XY says "redirects that could equally point to multiple targets", the plain meaning of rest of the section indicates that redirects should only be deleted under XY if the targets do not cover the same subject matter.
    • The justification for deleting redirects per XY is because ...there is no way to determine which topic a reader is searching. "Which topic" implies more than one.
    • One solution to solve a prima facie XY redirect is ... for such redirects to point to a location in which both topics are discussed. The use of "both topics" means that XY redirects are those that discuss different topics.
    • The redlinked examples are ones that refer to different topics (e.g. Law, crime and punishment, Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and Illness or death).
    In this case, there was only one NCAA game in 2006 between West Virginia and Louisville. It is just a single topic which discussed in two different articles, so XY should not apply. Even if we hold "topic" to be synonymous with "article" in the wording of XY, there's no reason why we cannot solve the issue by redirecting it to the 2006 Louisville season page's section page for West Virginia. In addition to the reasons above, there's many reasons why such a target makes sense and would be helpful. Deleting this and allowing users to search is pointless and inferior to merely adding a "see also" hatnote under the section on the Louisville page to the section on the West Virginia page, or adding a in-text link to that section. There is currently only one alternative to section on the Louisville page, and that's the analogous section on the West Virginia season page. Both cover the same game, so there's no issue with having a hatnote or a link, unlike red-linked examples at XY, which are quite distinct from each other and would be cluttered by a hatnote. Also, according to 2006_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_season#Conference_standings, Louisville was only one game ahead of West Virginia in both conference play and overall record to lead the Big East conference that year, so it seems like the game was key to Louisville's season, which is another reason to point it there. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems that there is at least consensus to not retain the status quo. However, at this point, that seems all as the "delete" and "retarget" opinions seem roughly split.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to choose I would choose the Louisville one since that is what is mentioned first in the search string. But then it would only be kept as "someone found it useful" as individual games in a schedule of games don't usually get their own link. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is an XY situation and just a game. No need for a redirect. Let the search engine do its job. No one is going to type that exact search string with the vs. and order of names etc. Legacypac (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Legacypac: It isn't an XY situation though. XY is where there are two topics that we only cover separately, this is a single topic that we have coverage of as a single topic. If you read the comments above you will discover why this is not just any game, and why people will be looking for it. As for search results, when people find them (which is sometimes three clicks away from where you arrive, and requires the search engine not to broken) the existence of this redirect will greatly aid the search engine in determining the correct results for similar queries. For example if someone types in this string without "vs" rather than "vs." then with this redirect the search engine will almost certainly return this redirect as the top hit, without this redirect it is more likely to return random pages that contain a few words of the string but are not about the topic someone is seeking. The search engine is not magic and cannot read thoughts. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to weigh in as the person who put down the XY concept, though respectful of the fact that the community can consider it differently and not be wrong. This is XY, since it's simply a redirect "that could equally point to multiple targets". None of the examples, red or blue, refer to topics we only cover separately, though the root of the problem is not having a single go-to place where they're discussed together. Now, all XY says is that the status quo is wrong; there can be multiple remedies. In this case, if the game is truly notable, the remedy is a standalone article. If not, it's deletion. Now, I admit it can be hard to tell how the search results are going to behave if it's deleted, but judging by the search now, readers are going to be just fine. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually a classic XY. We have coverage of the topic in two places, both of which are equal weight. A redirect gives more weight to one page over the other. Still delete. Legacypac (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to one of the targets listed above per Thryduulf. I really don't see a huge difference, but either choice is preferable to deletion. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: this is an involved relisting to allow the Septmeber 18 page to be closed. An uninvolved closer is encouraged to assess consensus at any time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is absolutely an XY situation, but beyond that, I'm failing to see what's so unique about this game that it needs to be memorialized. Plainly it doesn't meet notability standards for a standalone article (if so, it'd have one), and that there are reliable sources discussing this game is exactly the reason that WP:ROUTINE debars routine sports coverage; 70-someodd Division I NCAA football games a week get written up in the mass media. Moving on, is there anything uniquely distinctive about an undefeated, highly ranked college sports team being upset? Of course not; that happens all the time as well. Did the loss cost the team the championship? No more so than losing to South Florida a few weeks later did. Was it at a critical point of the season? No, it was just past the halfway point. Was it even an upset? For crying out loud, Louisville was undefeated too, itself ranked 5th in the nation going into the game, and was the home team to boot. Ravenswing 02:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're completely missing the point. This discussion is not about whether we should have content about this game, the fact is that we do. If you disagree with that discuss it on the talk page of the articles that contain that content. If there was only content on one of the articles then this would have been kept weeks ago as there would be no question of its relevance or utility. There should still be no quesiton of relevance or utility just because it's covered equally in two places - this discussion has lasted so long only because a single essay is arguably relevant to a similar situation - which is entirely backwards. We are here to serve readers not delete redirects we can't shoehorn into some neat silo. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • And you're completely missing conflict of interest; you have no business being involved in making decisions about relisting debates in which you've been taking part. Ravenswing 02:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisting doesn't mean the discussion must stay open another week. I'm sure someone could relist in a disruptive or bad-faith way (I'm not exactly sure how), but Thryduulf's relist here was transparent and helpful in terms of the backlog. You and I agree on what should happen to this redirect, but there's no procedural malfeasance here. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 24 October 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.

Richest boy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 20#Richest boy

Trumponian[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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Term does not seem to be widely attested in reliable sources, all usages I could find were from blogs and the like. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:35, 19 October 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.

The Master (2013 film)[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) 18:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The target article (or IMDB) does not indicate that this film is known as "The Master". (Note there are many other films called "The Master" listed at the dab page Master). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:44, 19 October 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.

Tuckasiegee[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 Tuckasegee. --BDD (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure what this refers to, is this an alternative spelling of Tuckasegee, North Carolina. I get a few hits is Google Books, but not sure what they refer to. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:55, 19 October 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.

Kim Chen Yn[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) 19:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFFL no affinity for Romanized Russian. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:43, 19 October 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.

DPPT[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to be a valid abbreviation. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not used in news sources for any useful articles, just acronyms for random stuff like Pokemon "Diamond, Pearl, and Platinum" [17] "data protection and privacy training", [18] Wilbarger Deep Pressure and Proprioceptive Technique, [19] some kind of polymer called DPPT-TT [20] , a local fitness business [21] Dover People's Port Trust [22] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per AngusWOOF's findings --Lenticel (talk) 01:37, 20 October 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.

Democratic Party (New South Wales)[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. --BDD (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there is no such party, the only things that I could find that were close are partial title matches. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Some discussion can be found at this entry at the talk page of the estimable Frickeg, and he replies on my comparatively humble talk page right here. There are two historical parties in NSW named "Democratic Party", namely the 1943 party and the 1920 one. You might have missed them because they're listed toward the bottom of the Democratic Party page. The redirects could possibly be retargeted at the #Defunct_parties anchor. Miracle Pen (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this be a dab page with (1920), (1943), and Australian Democrats? That the 1920 and 1943 ones are specifically NSW leads me to believe they should be highlighted as such with entries clarifying what they are. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Miracle Pen as there are multiple historic Democratic Parties from NSW. -- Tavix (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Miracle Pen and Tavix. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:43, 4 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_19&oldid=1138582047"