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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ಥ⁀ಥ → Rabbit in Your Headlights  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention in article Abote2 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete searching for this is tricky as Google treats the ⁀ as a generic connector and doesn't give results only for the literal character but for things like wikt:ಥ_ಥ (with an underscore rather than a tie) which represents a "crying face" not a rabbit in the headlights. Talk:List of emoticons/Archive 2#Please put back the 2Chan emoticons, they are different than the East Asian ones. ((Edit request on 27 December 2011)) has "ಥ⌣ಥ" and "ಥ‿ಥ" (with a "smile" and "undertie" respectively) as variants of "look of disapproval", but nothing exactly matching this and nothing to do with rabbits. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the next morning that this is indeed keep and not speedy keep; I'm not convinced that this nomination was itself POINTy, and while I generally disagree with the practice, the community here has frequently been accepting of nominations of items previously and recently done in-bulk. It'd probably be better if we did those at DRV. Also, and this is really burying the lead here, but this was closed on time, not clearly not speedy. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Crapwatch → Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was a rather WP:POINTY creation during Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Wikipedia:JCW/CRAP. I had added this redirect to that discussion so all the "crap" redirects could be discussed at once, but since this received no individual disussion, I'd like to have that now. The target is not in and of itself a stand-alone WikiProject (certainly not one with this uncivil name), but rather a subpage of WikiProject Academic Journals. It has no usage outside of the context it was created, nor should it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep WP:POINTY nomination. It's a likely search term, or at least will be once the project kicks off in full. WP:CHEAP applies, and again, the name is not uncivil. Anyone that wanted to delete that one could have spoken up at the other RFD, and deleting this one, given Wikipedia:Crapwatch, Wikipedia:The Crapwatch, Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Crapwatch also all point to WP:CRAPWATCH, is particularly silly. And yes, these are new, but that's because the Crapwatch is nearing the end of its development and is about to be launched.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per the discussion I closed yesterday with consensus to keep all the listed redirects, including this one. Just because nobody felt the need to explicitly mention this one doesn't make this nomination less WP:POINTY. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: That is because this redirect was created during the discussion just because I mentioned its lack of existence. Please refer to the previous discussion for that information. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm familiar with that discussion having closed it. People had plenty time to comment on it if they felt necessary as it was created before the discussion was relisted, that they chose not to does not invalidate the general consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simply put, this redirect has a different rationale for deletion than the others. Now that the general discussion on the "crap" redirects has closed, I think it's worthwhile to have a discussion solely on this one, separate from the others. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. As I stated in the previous discussion, the creation of this redirect was definitively WP:POINTy. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like deleting this specific redirect isn't gaining traction in this discussion, so I'm withdrawing my opinion. However, I would not be opposed to the previous discussion having a WP:DRV in order to at least unbundle this redirect from that discussion considering that it was added after the discussion started. However, I'm not going to actively pursue this option, but will most likely participate if someone else opens up such a dialogue. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  (Restoring my "Delete" word since I'm still in the belief that this needs to be deleted, regardless of the "speedy keep" concerns listed thus far. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC) )[reply]

  @Steel1943: see my updated first post above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regardless of why the redirect was created, nobody chose to single it out as any different to the others listed. This redirect had consensus to be kept in the discussion that was closed yesterday so this nomination is exceedingly pointy - if there were problems with the closure then firstly Tavix should have discussed it on my talk page, and then (if still not satisfied) taken it to DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have a problem with the closure en masse, this is a separate discussion with a different rationale. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Inappropriate nomination after yesterday's close. --Randykitty (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep We got it, the horse is dead. Nemo 21:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Atatürk and Kurds → Mustafa Kemal Atatürk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Ataturk and Kurds → Mustafa Kemal Atatürk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Atatuerk and Kurds → Mustafa Kemal Atatürk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:AND, the article doesn't discuss this. The first has been around since Feb 2007, but content was merged the same Sept. 188.143.76.152 (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is plenty of discussion about Attaturk and the Kurdish people but it's spread out through his biography and various articles about different events rather than there being a single article I've found. There is a lot of material out there so it's far from a random collaction, and it's quite possible there is an overview of the relationship somewhere that I've not spotted that would make a good target. Thryduulf (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I couldn't find an article that has Attatúrk versus the Kurds (or with them). I can't find the spelling "Attatuerk" in any reliable source either. Had we content about Attatúrk (not Turkey, but Attatúrk) and the Kurds, I would say rediret to it. As it is, I think it is just misleading. Same anon, new IP178.164.162.144 (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "ue" is a common modification of the German ü, so a bot created "Atatuerk and Kurds" based on the presence of "Atatürk and Kurds". Many such redirects have been brought to RfD; this page has several examples. The pattern seems to be to keep those attested elsewhere. --BDD (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There are several articles about Atatürk or the Kurds with mention of the other (e.g., Kurds in Turkey, Kurdish rebellions in Turkey, Kemalism), but no logical place to point these. Search results are the best we're going to get for now. --BDD (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've spent more time searching and while this is obviously a plausible search term, I agree with Tavix that, unfortunately, I don't think we can improve on search results for now (even though for some people this will be several clicks away). Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: While I appreciate the support, I have not opined in this discussion. I think you mean BDD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: Indeed I do, my apologies to both you and BDD. I guess it reads like the sort of rationale you would use. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Park Inn → Park Plaza Hotels & Resorts  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Park Inn is a sister brand of Park Plaza Hotels & Resorts. However, i am not sure the hotel chain is a primary topic of "Park Inn/inn", while article Park Inn Hotel also existed. I am also not sure aforementioned historical Park Inn Hotel in Mason City, was part of "Park Inn" hotel chain or not. It seem "Park Inn" is a generic term. Matthew hk (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More over, Park Hotel, Park Plaza are disambiguation page, despite Park Plaza hotel chain existed (not sure individual Park Plaza hotel are part of the chain either), as well as multiple Park Hotel chains. Since not enough entry for creating Park Inn (disambiguation), RfD is more suitable than RM. Matthew hk (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turn out The Omni Grove Park Inn and Dog Bark Park Inn also existed. Matthew hk (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all my searches indicate that the current target is the clear primary topic. Park Inn Hotel should have a hatnote, as maybe should Park Hotel (disambiguation) but the others are just partial title matches. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf. Park Hotel and Park Inn (disambiguation) cover other uses adequately. feminist (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland#Publications Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mineralogical Magazine → Mineralogical Abstracts  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Mineralogical Abstracts was a supplement to Mineralogical Magazine and Journal of the Mineralogical Society. It makes no sense to redirect the larger organizations to the side-product. This should be deleted per WP:REDLINK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to retarget to Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland#Publications per PamD (talk · contribs). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created the redirect in 2013. It's true that Mineralogical Abstracts was a supplement to Mineralogical Magazine and Journal of the Mineralogical Society. However, in WP there is no page (that I know of), that conveys more info on Mineralogical Magazine than the Mineralogical Abstracts page. Therefore I consider the redirect serves a useful function, until a Mineralogical Magazine page is created. DadaNeem (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment my first thought is that the redirect should be reversed and a brief stub written about the main magazine. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:Retarget to Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland#Publications. PamD 09:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great retarget! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've re-targeted. This can be closed as withdrawn/retargeted/whatever. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) 02:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Austrianism → Austrian School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Redirect term not explained within target; no obvious connotation discernible. Hildeoc (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as plausible search term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Austrianism is mentioned in a quote in the references section, the topic is literally the only one in the first three pages at least of google results for the exact phrase, so someone unaware of the meaning is only going to see it in a context that means this article will not be a surprise. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Please note WP:R#PLA.--Hildeoc (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, almost my entire comment is devoted to explaining why someone searching for "Austrianism" would not be astonished to find themselves at the "Austrian School" article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: ... and still, since it is not identical with the current target lemma, the term Austrianism should be integrated there in a proper manner (i. e. according to the relevant guidelines as given in the above policy) ...--Hildeoc (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines (which are not themselves a policy, but guidelines) and long precedent both say that when the context is clear bolding isn't required. In this case, as I explain above, context is clear. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Firstly, if you had read carefully, you would have seen I wrote the relevant guidelines as given in the above policy. And secondly, as is apparent from these, it's not just about bolding ...--Hildeoc (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how you want to play the semantics it doesn't alter the fact that, for the reasons previously explained, this redirect should be kept and the the target is fine as is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I personally know plenty of people would refer to this branch of economics as "Austrianism." It's decently common. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 01:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Withdrawn and then speedily deleted (per WP:CSD#G4) by RHaworth. Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Middletown ct → Middletown, Connecticut  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary redirect from town and lower-case state abbreviation, already deleted at RfD in 2018. PamD 18:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

• Withdraw: nominated for CSD G4 instead. Sorry about that. PamD 19:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 disambiguated -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MMSA → University of Malta  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The name MMSA which is an acronym that is pointing to the university doesn't seem to mention the acronym anywhere in the article or any expanded version. It also perhaps blocking MMSA acronym on the template:post-nominals in the William Fletcher Shaw article. scope_creep^Talk 16:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've found the history: the Malta Medical Students' Association had existed since 2006; an AfD in June 2016 closed as "Merge to University of Malta" and the content was added there but was removed in Nov 2016 with edit summary "Thanks but a trivia as many societies exist and need to mention them all not barely one". There seem to be some other MMSAs such as Midwest Military Simulation Association, and I'll have a go at creating a dab page. PamD 08:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dab page now created, and mention of MMSA replaced in University of Malta. Dab page includes the MMSA postnom: the redirect from Master of Midwifery of the Society of Apothecaries to Worshipful Society of Apothecaries existed, but not from the abbreviation. PamD 08:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig per PamD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 withdrawn Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• List of smartwatches → Smartwatch#List of smart watches in production  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to deleted section within article. uKER (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with a redirect to Smartwatch#List_of_smartwatches? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I missed that section being there. Fixed. You may close this. --uKER (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Taxis Australia → Taxis in Australia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect created by a page move. Original title was a typo (and a pretty implausible one at that). No reason for this to continue to exist. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Should have been able to be handled by speedy deletion. There is no reason to discuss deleting redirects like this, and them being sent here wastes everyone's time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Drover's Wife: Hear hear. No doubt the R3 exemption was carved out as a response to some ridiculous edge case in a long distant time, but now it just limits the criterion’s most useful application. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The R3 criterion does not apply to page moves or long-standing redirects for very good reason, not just edgecases. When pages get moved there is a high likelihood of incoming links in many cases and not all typos are as implausible as they first seem - especially when they've been around as long as this one has (3½ years). In this case it seems only to be a partial title match for a couple of non-notable cab firms, but discussing such redirects is not a waste of anybody's time. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 List of iOS devices#iPad. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• IPad (2012) → IPad (3rd generation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous since the iPad (4th generation) was also released in 2012. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Convert to disambiguation page per Champion's info above. I've drafted this on the redirect page, ready to go. PamD 21:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it was just a suggestion, based partly on existence of iPad (2017) and 2018.

Retarget per Steel1943. PamD 09:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of iOS devices#iPad since I'm not seeing the need for a disambiguation page for a term that is not even really an official term, and readers will find what they are looking for in that section. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Steel1943. A disambiguation at this title is not valid per WP:INCOMPDAB. Im also fine with deletion since I don't think this is much of a search term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.