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 as G11 (spam/political advocacy). Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Understanding the Value of Pharmaceuticals → Pharmacology (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Implausible search term —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or retarget this was an article for a long time, and was only turned into a redirect to "an existing article section" in December. I haven't checked whether anything was merged, in which case we'd need to keep this for attribution purposes, but this gets a good number of hits - almost certainly due to the persistence of links from outside Wikipedia, and so we should keep something at this title. Whether the current target is the best though I'm not certain - I've not found anything better but it wouldn't surprise me if there was something. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This page was not transcluded on the main RfD page until approximately 00:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect per Thryduulf. I can find no better target, either. Rossami (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks a lot like the title of an essay. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe so, but lots of people are using this title to find Wikipedia content, deleting it will make it harder for them to get what they are looking for without doing any harm. What benefits will deletion bring? Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The target doesn't really seem to cover the concept of "Understanding the Value of Pharmaceuticals", which is not a plausible search term.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the pageviews. The title isn't offensive or confusing, and its existence allowed fifty people in the last thirty days to find the pharmacology article. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2012 (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.