Talk:member of parliament’s legislative motion

RFV discussion: December 2015–January 2016
This term appears to be invented and is not actually in use: all the ghits are Wikipedia or Wiktionary mirrors. It seems to have come from this contemporary version of Private member's bill, which dates from an earlier page move, which was only done to avoid using the UK-specific term private member's bill. Keith the Koala (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way it uses the wrong comma; if proven to exist should be at member of parliament's legislative motion just I don't want to move it, have to relink this section header and then it might get deleted anyway. Per Keith the Koala, it might just be a sum-of-parts title designed to not be UK specific. Not all Wikipedia entry titles are valid Wiktionary entries, consider w:History of London for example! Renard Migrant (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd just send this to RFD as sum of parts, but it looks like it can't be cited anyway. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought of adding it to both and seeing which process deletes it first... Keith the Koala (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment. In any case, the definition doesn't make sense. Members of parliament can introduce many different kinds of legislative motions during parliamentary proceedings, only one of which is a private member's bill. It is not obvious why a phrase with such a broad meaning should only be defined as "private member's bill". Smuconlaw (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Smuconlaw: Can you please avoid voting "delete" in RFV? In RFV, we collect evidence to see whether a term is attested per WT:ATTEST. The occasions on which voting is appropriate in RFV are rare. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Righto. Smuconlaw (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)