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 first four, keep last two. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Conservative Government 2015–2020 → Second Cameron ministry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Conservative Government 2015-2020 → Second Cameron ministry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• United Kingdom government (2015–present) → Second Cameron ministry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• United Kingdom government (2015-present) → Second Cameron ministry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• United Kingdom government (2017–present) → Second May ministry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• United Kingdom government (2017-present) → Second May ministry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Per the result of this discussion from July. --Nevé–selbert 13:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Neve-selbert: The second May ministry is still ongoing, no? It wouldn't be fair to lump those redirects in this discussion when the referenced previous discussion was specifically for outdated redirects. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It is for now, but it probably won't for much longer.--Nevé–selbert 14:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  For now is the key phrase there. You're a bit too soon on nominating those then. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the first four per the previous discussion, keep for now the last two as not actually outdated. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the 2020 versions as that assumes WP:CRYSTAL that the Conservative Government will no longer be in power after 2020. Neutral on the others. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those redirects also assume that the prime minster won't change in 2016 and that there won't be a snap election in 2017. Delete as inaccurate. Also delete the "2015-present" as the word "present" is inaccurate. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the first four. 2015-2020 overlaps two prime ministers, two governments (although both Conservative) and three articles and 2020 isn't significant any more as the next election is now scheduled for 2022. 2015-present isn't really one government either. Peter James (talk) 19:39, 31 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 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 various A combination of retargeting and deletion, as per Thryduulf's suggestion. Richest boy (on earth, in the world, ever, etc.) all redirected to Richie Rich (comics). (The) Richest man/men/woman/women/human (being)/individual(s)/people in the world/on earth/ever/etc. all redirected to Lists of people by net worth. Everything else deleted. fish&karate 10:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Richest boy → The World's Billionaires  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Richest boy ever → The World's Billionaires  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Richest boy in history → The World's Billionaires  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Richest boy in the world → The World's Billionaires  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

The World's Billionaires has an overabundance of redirects, most of which I don't think should redirect there as it's a single-source list published by Forbes. I'm going through and retargeting some of them to e.g. Lists of people by net worth and List of wealthiest historical figures, but I figure it easier to delete the junk redirects. I think a lot of them are simply implausible, but others may be misleading for other reasons. The boy/girl redirects imply children, but there aren't any children on the Forbes list, and I've been unable to find a list of the wealthiest children. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, since this discussion has gone on for over a month now, Delete all per WP:TNT. Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget richest boy in the world and richest kid in the world to Richie Rich AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @AngusWOOF: Richie Rich is a disambiguation page. Why should that redirect there? -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the comics page. He was referred to as the "richest kid in the world" [1] and "world's richest boy" [2] Here's "richest kid in the world" as a subtitle on the comic itself. [3] [4] [5] World's richest kid [6] [7] "richest kid in the world" [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with Thryduulf's proposal. I would remove the lady, ladies, gentleman, gentlemen ones as that implies some honorifics that are not listed as such in reliable sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Richest/Wealthiest boy/guys/girl/human/lady/gentleman [and plurals], keep' man/individual/woman/person [and plurals]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Multiple, all without prejudice to renomination individually or in much smaller groups of similar redirects.
  • Retarget those mentioned by AngusWOOF to Richie Rich (comics).
  • Retarget "(The) richest" "man"/"men"/"woman"/"women"/"human (being)"/"individual(s)"/"people" to Lists of people by net worth.
  • Delete others. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget/delete per Thryduulf's proposal. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, generally, as to anything for which there is not a specific consensus to keep. bd2412 T 18:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse Thryduulf's recommendations - the correct way to deal with these. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:37, 21 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.

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. No discussion in two weeks, this suggestion around an ambiguous term makes most sense, feel free to override if there's a better target for it. fish&karate 10:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• POP Station devices → Video game clone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target, was deleted at AfD. I have boldly retargeted Pop Station to Contemporary hit radio (where Pop radio points to). Searches for "pop station" mainly return up results about a courier that we don't have an article about, if you think that is problematic, feel free to nominate it. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• According to this search, a rip-off of the Playstation named "POP station" does exist, and there's even an Engadget article about it, so it should be kept. editorEهեইдအ😎 01:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "POP Station" is currently mentioned at the target (in the collapsed table at Video game clone#Rip-offs. Not sure what "devices" means here; "peripherals", maybe? 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the courier would be PopStation, a service from Singapore Post [13] but would need a mention if it was a notable product. Comparable to Amazon Locker and Packstation AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ambiguous. A POP station is also a terminal where you can reload your smart fare card in transit systems which use proof of payment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:17, 21 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.