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. Consensus was clear and unequivocal. ((R from plural)) rcat to be added post-close. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 21:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncinate processes of pancreases → Uncinate process of pancreas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nonsensical redirect. There is only one uncinate process. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree it is nonsensical, but if a misinformed reader types it in it still get him/her to the rigth place. I would turn it around and ask what is the adverse effect of keeping it? Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CHEAP as ((R from plural)) (note that both process and pancreas are plural in this redirect). Narky Blert (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep; no reason to not keep. Improbable but occasionally helpful. J947 ^(c), at 02:29, 17 February 2020 (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 speedy keep. Close my own nom, Withdrawn. This is only going towards one result. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Quantrill's raid → Lawrence massacre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Several of Quantrill's activities could be classified as raids. The Battle of Baxter Springs would also initiated by Quantrill and could also be considered a raid. Ambiguous. Hog Farm (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A quick web search indicates that "Quantrill's raid" is used exclusively to refer to the Lawrence massacre. I found a lot of uses and no counterexamples. Same on Google Scholar. Paradoctor (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – See ((Campaignbox Quantrill's Raid into Kansas)) which basically came from information at the National Park Service Lawrence Battle Detail. Mojoworker (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I created this redirect after searching for "Quantrill's Raid" and coming up empty. My impression as a former Kansas resident is that this phrase is more common than "Lawrence massacre." Lobosolo (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2020 (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 Special forces. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Military elite → Elite  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Concept is not explained in the target article, which only descibes Elites in the sociological sense. Military elite used to be an article until its' deletion in 2018, but none of the content was re-integrated into the target article (from which it was originally split off). Best solution would probably be to recreate the military section in the target article, barring that a deletion would probalby be in order. --93.225.157.88 talk 05:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment signature was added by Doug Mehus T·C 19:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not sure about the term 'military elite', but 'elite military' seems like it would be a reference to 'special forces'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article identified by CoffeeWithMarkets seems sufficiently general for me to conditionally support retargeting there, but will wait to see what others say as well before deciding for sure. Doug Mehus T·C 14:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Special forces. This seems like what readers would be looking for, so I see no reason not to retarget. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Special forces per BDD and CoffeeWithMarkets. The article seems to be both sufficiently generic and global in scope. We can always add any hatnotes to related articles as future targets emerge. Doug Mehus T·C 15:31, 18 February 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is It You(song) → Is It You (Cassie song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Useless redirect with a spacing error before the disambiguator. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Useless clutter. NB the correctly-formatted redirect Is It You (song) exists, and correctly redirects to DAB page Is It You as ((R from incomplete disambiguation)). Narky Blert (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as typo in formatting. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology. → Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Typo and unlikely search term. This is similar in name to STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology except this one has stray punctuation lurking at the end: a period. Senator2029 “Talk” 05:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Three mistakes is too many; unnecessary clutter. On my test, typing "strengthening th" into the search box pulled up the correctly-formatted title as top choice. Narky Blert (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as housekeeping. The capitalized version without the period exists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unlikely typo error. PKT(alk) 14:39, 17 February 2020 (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 speedy delete. kingboyk (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sanjeev Kathpalia → Mindteck  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (just about). He's the CEO. I've added him to the infobox, backed up with a citation which was already in the article. IMO nowhere near passing WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Citation Narky added is a primary source Delete now that Mindteck as at AfD. Since we're not a bureaucracy, I see no reason for delaying this RfD until the AfD closes. I'm not sure this company could pass AfD. It hasn't yet. As written, only a couple sources, potentially, make for a WP:GNG pass, but I'm not sure there's enough sources for it to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm not going to re-nominate the company too early, but this needs more research. Nevertheless, I see no reason for deleting the redirect yet. If it fails AfD, the redirect can be deleted then. Doug Mehus T·C 13:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's nothing in any way wrong with using WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs simply to verify facts, which is what that WP:SELFPUB citation does. Whether Mindteck passes any of WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH and so on is an entirely different matter. Narky Blert (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindteck (2nd nomination). Narky Blert (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Changing my !vote above; no way this article passes AfD. Doug Mehus T·C 20:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We must not prejudge the result at AFD. Mindteck has survived one AFD nomination. While Mindteck exists, Sanjeev Kathpalia is IMO a valid redirect to it. Narky Blert (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True, but it's a mistake to say it "survived" one AfD. The previous nomination was withdrawn as "speedy keep." Beyond that, it had one editor, who withdrew the nomination, advocate for deletion, and one editor, who may have been the content creator, advocate for keeping. Doug Mehus T·C 21:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mindteck has been deleted per this discussion at AfD, so this redirect can now be "speedily" deleted per G8/R8. Doug Mehus T·C 14:46, 24 February 2020 (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 Internalized sexism#toxic feminity. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Toxic femininity → Femininity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:R#D10: not mentioned at target or anywhere.Retarget, per feminist. Without any context provided, it could also be construed as violating WP:RNEUTRAL. Paradoctor (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Internalized sexism#Internalized misogyny, where I have added content on the term. feminist (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Internalized sexism#toxic feminity with rcats ((R to subtopic))/((R to related topic)) and ((R to anchor)), per Feminist's good find and addition. I've refined the target to an embedded anchor, in case the section header gets changed. Feel free to move around the anchor to the start of the section, feminist. Doug Mehus T·C 13:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Internalized sexism#"Toxic femininity". The term is a definite neologism, but there is some RS coverage in the context of internalized sexism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Internalized sexism#"Toxic femininity". per Doug. Kaldari (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Vandalpedia → Vandalism on Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is this even a thing? I've never heard of this and it doesn't seem to have been used online. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#D10, for reuse as a potential shortcut or another essay on Wikipedia vandalism, as it's not mentioned in the target, potentially ambiguous, and has ~36 pageviews per year. Thus, an WP:R#K5 fail. Doug Mehus T·C 03:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ​The low pageview number is probably due to the fact the page is less than one month old. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAwesomeHwyh:, ah, even better. Useless recently created redirect not mentioned in the target. Delete. Doug Mehus T·C 03:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. On the basis of this link, I would have suggested retargetting to Illogicopedia; but no-one seems to have yet been motivated to write an article on it; or indeed to mention it in any WP article. Narky Blert (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have suggested retargetting to Illogicopedia; but no-one seems to have yet been motivated to write an article on it

The article was previously deleted per this AfD. It was later protected indefinitely. If you want to create an article or redirect with the title, please submit that on AfC. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but no thanks. Narky Blert (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this implies there's an actual website of this name, like uncyclopedia. But there isn't. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There seems to be no reason why we should keep this. I agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2020 (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 Move Multitasking (disambiguation) to Multitasking and redirect all to there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Multitasking → Computer multitasking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Multi-tasking → Computer multitasking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Multi tasking → Computer multitasking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Multitask → Computer multitasking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Multi-task → Computer multitasking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Multi-doing → Computer multitasking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ambiguous term and no clear primary topic, as there's no way computer multitasking is the primary topic here. Recommend move-ing Multitasking (disambiguation) to Multitasking, then
retarget-ing all to Multitasking, as described by Shhhnotsoloud below, per WP:R#D2 and WP:XY (was retargeting to the disambiguation page, Multitasking (disambiguation), per WP:R#D2 and WP:XY, and then moving Multitasking (disambiguation) to Multitasking.)^{Modified and Amended} --Doug Mehus T·C 02:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a WP:MALPLACED mess. There is absolutely no way that any of the topics at Multitasking (disambiguation) is WP:PTOPIC. Multitasking should be a DAB page at that basename, and everything else redirect to it. Narky Blert (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, too, Narky. I recommend closing as retarget, assuming that's what consensus is, then moving per this consensus post-close. These redirects were created decades ago, ostensibly by computer nerds who felt there was a clear primary topic. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 03:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, bad multitasking redirects to human multitasking. Should we add that in as well? Doug Mehus T·C 03:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would redirect bad multitasking to the DAB page - it's not mentioned in human multitasking (which until just now contained a tricky-to-fix citation error.) Narky Blert (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Multitasking disambiguation per Narky Blert AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, can you modify that to Multitasking (disambiguation) and then move that page to Multitasking? The reason is, the RfD talk page should be added to each of the subject redirects, and if we retarget to one of the subject redirects, everything will be overwritten when the disambiguation moves over the redirect. Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 03:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF and Narky Blert, I've added to my nomination. Doug Mehus T·C 03:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Mehus, yes the disambiguation page should be called Multitasking per WP:DABNAME. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF Yes, I agree with that—see my nomination—what I'm saying is, this should be closed as retarget to Multitasking (disambiguation), so the target is updated and revision history preserved, then Multitasking (disambiguation) should be moved to Multitasking, correct? Doug Mehus T·C 03:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Multitasking (disambiguation) to Multitasking over the redirect, and retarget all there (which is what others are proposing above). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to think if that would work as well, and I think it would, so I'm contemplating modifying my nomination statement to reflect that. The only history that would be lost would be the history of multitasking, as far as I can tell, which is just redirect and rcat changes and bot or bot-like editors. In short, nothing worth keeping. Yep, that sounds good to me. Doug Mehus T·C 14:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, nomination amended, and Thank you. Doug Mehus T·C 14:17, 17 February 2020 (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.