Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 25#Tits (boobs)

• {{no redirect|1 = Milwaukee Tumor }} → :Abdominal obesity  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milwaukee_Tumor&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-01-26&end=2020-02-24&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Milwaukee_Tumor stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Milwaukee Tumor|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Milwaukee Tumor closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Milwaukee Tumor|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Milwaukee Tumor closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Milwaukee Tumor|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Milwaukee Tumor closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

Not mentioned in target article, not a commonly used term, and [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=last-year&pages=Milwaukee_Tumor 8 pageviews]. Not evidence of usefulness here. Hog Farm (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. See the [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Milwaukee%20Tumor Urban Dictionary] definition for why. Narky Blert (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

• {{no redirect|1 = Estados Unidos }} → :United States  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estados_Unidos&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-01-26&end=2020-02-24&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Estados_Unidos stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Estados Unidos|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Estados Unidos closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Estados Unidos|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Estados Unidos closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Estados Unidos|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Estados Unidos closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

• {{no redirect|1 = Etats-Unis }} → :United States  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etats-Unis&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-01-27&end=2020-02-25&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Etats-Unis stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Etats-Unis|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Etats-Unis closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Etats-Unis|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Etats-Unis closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Etats-Unis|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Etats-Unis closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]

• {{no redirect|1 = États-Unis }} → :United States  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%89tats-Unis&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-01-27&end=2020-02-25&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=%C3%89tats-Unis stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:États-Unis|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#États-Unis closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:États-Unis|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#États-Unis closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:États-Unis|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#États-Unis closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]

{{Priorrfd|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 11#États-Unis|Keep|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 4#États-Unis d'Amérique}}

Would Estados Unidos be an appropriate redirect to United States? Per WP:RFOREIGN, it says that redirects should be kept if the name is the countries native name. This one is not. I don't see anywhere in this policy where this redirect is appropriate. Would this be a case for WP:IAR? Interstellarity (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keep although not an official language, Spanish is the second most widely spoken language in the USA and is broadly relevant to the country's culture. The subject has enough affinity for the Spanish language to justify a redirect. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep There is a very large Spanish-speaking population in the United States, and the language has been historically relevant to US culture. Hog Farm (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per SMB and HF. Narky Blert (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

:Disambiguate. It's ambiguous with {{-r|Estados Unidos Mexicanos}}. Narky Blert (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

::{{rto|Narky Blert}} What about the two French names for United States, though? Doug Mehus T·C 13:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Question for {{U|SpicyMilkBoy}} and {{u|Hog Farm}}. What is your opinion on États-Unis, the French word? I won't nominate that one because I don't want to create separate discussions on the same topic.
• Comment. This whole area looks like the tip of a can of worms. There are also redirects like {{-r|Frankreich}}, {{-r|Schweden}} and {{-r|Zweden}} (categorised as {{tl|R from misspelling}}, but it's the Dutch name). Narky Blert (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• {{reply to|Narky Blert}} I'd say it's a case-by-case situation, with the judgment call being based on cultural/historical connections. Given the history between France/Germany, I'd !vote to keep Frankreich, but, for instance, if a user were to create a redirect for the German translation of Brazil (Google translate suggests Brasilien), then that would probably be deletable. Definitely a can of worms here. Hog Farm (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• {{ping|Hog Farm}} Brasilien is indeed German for Brazil.

:::Italie (French for Italy) and Italija (Croatian, with a historical connection) redirect to Italy, but Italien (German) to Comédie-Italienne. What.A.Mess.

:::There are some real oddities in redirects to countries. {{-r|Howdy partner}} -> Italy - really? Narky Blert (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Even in Spanish, the United States is the primary topic for "Estados Unidos", see :es:Estados Unidos. To satisfy WP:RFOREIGN, Spanish certainly has an affinity with the United States per Spanish language in the United States. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• For the French redirects, since they have been added, keep per French language in the United States. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Note {{ping|SpicyMilkBoy|Hog Farm|Narky Blert|Tavix}} I have added the French word for United States to this discussion. You are welcome to comment on that to determine whether this should be deleted or not. Interstellarity (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

::No opinion here on {{-r|Etats-Unis}}{{sic}} - the diacritics are wrong, whatever the result of the discussion on Estados Unidos, which is a different issue. It's {{-r|États-Unis}}. (Actually, I do have an opinion on both of those; but it would a WP:DISCUSSFORK.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Narky Blert}} My mistake. I added the correct one. Interstellarity (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keep both Spanish is widely spoken throughout the US, and French has a significant history and continuing presence for a handful of US states (Maine and Louisiana for sure, possibly a few others). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep all per {{u|Rosguill}} and per WP:RLOTE. I would just add that your U.S. neighbour to the north is officially bilingual and, on that basis, North American maps are literally printed in both official languages, so Etats-Unis appears alongside United States on the 49th parallel. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 01:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep both as countries that have had a major influence on the formation of the US. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Estados Unidos and États-Unis per WP:RFOREIGN - cultures which spoke Spanish and French had significant impact on development of the United States and its culture, and there are significant populations of Spanish speakers throughout the country and French speakers in certain regions (Louisiana is named for a French king, for example). Keep Etats-Unis as valid {{tl|R without diacritics}}. No opinion on any of the other country redirects that have been mentioned here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• :This is the English language WP, not the United States WP. By this logic we should also include the Gaelic (multiple variants) names for the UK, aboriginal names for Australia and Maori names for New Zealand. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• ::Uh, ... yeah. I agree. This is the English-language Wikipedia, on which we help English readers find the information they're looking for in any of the many reasonably likely ways they may search for that information. That's why we do have redirects like Y Deyrnas Unedig, Lloegr, Engelond, Epekwitk, Yootó Hahoodzo, and Nieuv Amsterdam, and why Aotearoa is a separate article from New Zealand. These redirects unambiguously target the correct articles, and deleting them makes things more difficult for some readers, for no discernible benefit to anyone. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep French is a language used legally in Louisiana. There are French government schools and French road signs -- 65.94.171.6 (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• :Again, this is the English language WP, not the United States WP. Whether Louisiana wants to use a different language is interesting in Louisiana, but totally irrelevant to language based policies. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• :: Louisiana is part of the United States, French is used there in legal usage, therefore French is a native language of the United States, thus the French language name is a native name of the country. Thus it is a correct use of a redirect -- 70.51.46.77 (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

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

• {{no redirect|1 = Tits (boobs) }} → :Breast  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tits_(boobs)&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-01-26&end=2020-02-24&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Tits_%28boobs%29 stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Tits (boobs)|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Tits (boobs) closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Tits (boobs)|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Tits (boobs) closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Tits (boobs)|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Tits (boobs) closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

Implausible disambiguator. Not encyclopedic. Suggest deleting. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I stand corrected (see below); was Delete per nom. Tits and Boobs would be great redirects; by disambiguating the former with the latter, it's implausible and nonsense. Unlikely to be used. Doug Mehus T·C 15:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2019-02-25&end=2020-02-24&pages=Tits_(boobs) the pageviews, which amounted to 3,251], in the preceding twelve months to yesterday. That's ~300 pageviews per month. As implausible as nom and I originally thought, this is a
  clear keep per WP:R#K5. Add rcats {{tl|R from incorrect disambiguation}} and {{tl|R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and call it a day. Doug Mehus T·C 15:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per the pageviews, the users are apparently finding this useful. Hog Farm (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• :{{rto|Hog Farm}} I know, it's bizarre with the disambiguation qualifier. I had expected to see only a handful (or two) of pageviews. Doug Mehus T·C 16:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• I was originally going to vote delete because tits = boobs = breasts. They have the same meaning. But I now vote keep per Doug. This redirect is used, harmless, no need to delete it. Masum Reza^📞 16:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• :You mean boobys and tits (and still more tits)? --Izno (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• ::It ought to point to teat, or possibly nipple which is the precise meaning. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

::::{{+1}} to the pun, {{u|Martin of Sheffield}}. Doug Mehus T·C 13:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment these seem to be mainly page searches. No articles are using this as a redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

::{{rto|AngusWOOF}} I'm not sure what you mean by "no articles are using this a redirect." If you mean this redirect has no inlinks, then yeah, that's most likely true. I would hope Tits (boobs) has no redlink potential—that is, no inlinks that would become red if it were deleted. Nevertheless, as odd as it is to disambiguate "tits" with "(boobs)," it's apparently a common search term that are getting users to the breast article, where they are well informed, to paraphrase {{u|Ivanvector}} from an unrelated RfD discussion relating to the grammatical (in)correctness of the redirect "vagina entry" being a valid search term for "vaginal opening," which is mentioned in the proposed target of vagina. Doug Mehus T·C 15:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

:::My wife will appreciate that I've been pinged to this particular discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - evidence of utility, and although it's unusual, boobs is a valid disambiguator for tits, which would otherwise be ambiguous with tit (bird) and partially with baeolophus, as well as all the topics at tits. I would think using "boobs" as a disambiguator here tends to indicate the reader is looking for information specifically on human female breasts (rather than teat as Martin of Sheffield suggested). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

• {{no redirect|1 = 1990 spelling reform }} → :Reforms of French orthography#Rectifications of 1990  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1990_spelling_reform&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-01-26&end=2020-02-24&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=1990_spelling_reform stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:1990 spelling reform|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#1990 spelling reform closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:1990 spelling reform|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#1990 spelling reform closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:1990 spelling reform|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#1990 spelling reform closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

Ambiguous, there's also at least the Portuguese Language Orthographic Agreement of 1990 (which was also a spelling reform). The terms is too generic to be worth disambiguating. – Uanfala (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

::{{u|Uanfala}} How many potential dablinks do we have? Nothing is "too generic" to be worth disambiguating, though. Disambiguation pages are, by their nature, generic. Doug Mehus T·C 14:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

:::Well, it's a vague, descriptive phrase that can apply to potentially a large number of entities, like 1990 rail accident (there are several), or 1990 coups d'états (again there have been several). – Uanfala (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

::::{{rto|Uanfala}} True, this titling is more indicative of, say, a category on spelling reforms by year, not disambiguation, more or less? Doug Mehus T·C 14:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. Those are the only two mentioned in Spelling reform. Narky Blert (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think the few mentions in that article should be seen as exhaustive. – Uanfala (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• They may well not be. Narky Blert (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Disambiguate, a reader searching for either the Portuguese or French reform may not be aware that other languages were also reformed that year. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

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

• {{no redirect|1 = Kitzeln }} → :Tickling  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kitzeln&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-01-26&end=2020-02-24&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Kitzeln stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Kitzeln|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Kitzeln closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Kitzeln|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Kitzeln closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Kitzeln|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Kitzeln closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

Subject has no direct affiliation with German. Delete per WP:RFFL. Hog Farm (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RLOTE. Narky Blert (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

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

• {{no redirect|1 = WhatCulture }} → :Dirt sheet  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WhatCulture&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-01-26&end=2020-02-24&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=WhatCulture stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:WhatCulture|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#WhatCulture closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:WhatCulture|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#WhatCulture closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:WhatCulture|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#WhatCulture closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

Topic is not mentioned on target page Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

:Comment Yeah, I specifically left out any reference to its redirect of 'dirt sheet' (if that's what you mean anyway I'm unfamiliar with this) as, in my opinion, WhatCulture is not strictly a wrestling website. It merely has a section on wrestling, among many others. The majority of its content isn't wrestling oriented, a quick look at its site and youtube channel made this quite apparent to me. Someone else raised this issue in the talk page as well which was what prompted my alteration. I considered added something like "it has a prominent section dedicated to WWE", but it just didn't seem noteworthy. Either way I'm not fussed if this gets deleted, but it shouldn't redirect to 'dirt sheet' in any case.VideoGamePlaya (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• delete - ridiculous redirect. If we still had the Defiant Wrestling article, then that would be a suitable redirect. We don't redirect an item based on what it is, even if it were true. In this case, it's not even a dirt sheet. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment the site has been around for a while now. Is it notable enough to have its own stub article? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

• {{no redirect|1 = DJ Bl3nd }} → :Spinnin' Records  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DJ_Bl3nd&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-01-26&end=2020-02-24&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=DJ_Bl3nd stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:DJ Bl3nd|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#DJ Bl3nd closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:DJ Bl3nd|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#DJ Bl3nd closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:DJ Bl3nd|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#DJ Bl3nd closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

Not mentioned in article; recently removed by {{u|Viewmont Viking}} as not notable. No mention anywhere else apart from brief mentions in articles for other EDM artists (and even then a redirect from artist to artist does not make sense without some sort of description). Jalen Folf (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Looks like an attempt to get mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia through an opened back door. PKT(alk) 19:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

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

• {{no redirect|1 = Social communism }} → :Left communism  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_communism&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-01-26&end=2020-02-24&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Social_communism stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Social communism|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Social communism closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Social communism|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Social communism closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Social communism|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Social communism closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]

It seems to be a made-up term and I don't see the relevance of redirecting to Left communism.--Davide King (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. It looks like a WP:NEOLOGISM coined by several people with somewhat different meanings ([https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/38459-The-Theory-of-Social-Communism-in-Brief 1], [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Communism-Genuine-Progress-Humans/dp/1492342033 2], [https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=3dq-how-much-do-you-know-about-social-communist-theory 3], [https://truthout.org/articles/communism-yes-but-for-whom/ 4]), or a mistranslation ([https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/11/16/the-buzludzha-monument-once-bulgarias-tribute-to-communism-now-a-ruin-that-fascinates-visitors/ 5]). Narky Blert (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NEOLOGISM with no clear meaning. Communism is social by definition, there's no need for the adjective modifier and left communism is the wrong target anyway. If it's supposed to be short for "socialist communism" then it's somewhere between redundant and inaccurate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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