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 16:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Cross-sibling → Sibling#Cross  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Term does not exist, it keeps being removed from the sibling article as there are no citations that show that it is anything other than an invented term between two interviewed siblings.

Butterfield, Janelle (2013-12-28). "She's my sister from another mister!". the Guardian. Jess is actually my cross-sister, a technical term it has taken us the 13 years since we met to coin.

This clearly indicated that this is an invented term, and not one that at the time of the interview was used by others, and is the only citation that I can find for this term 198.151.8.4 (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this appears to be a real term with a different meaning, used mostly in Austronesian anthropology & linguistics, e.g. [1] A man may not discuss sexual matters with his sister or other close kave, but a distant cross sibling is an appropriate marriage partner. As far as I can tell, the meaning here is "a sibling or cousin of the opposite sex". This is peripherally mentioned at dyadic kinship term (since "cross-sibling" is an example of such a term), but I'm not sure it would make a good target. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cross cousin is a cousin through a mothers brother or sisters brother. Cross sibling in this context seems to be a sister if you are male, and a brother if you are female [2] page 47 parallel versus cross-sibling terms (e.g., Woman’s Sister versus Man’s Sister).. Distant in your quote probely refers to removal making it a diffrent gendered remote cousin (probably of the same generation) as you state. Either way it should not be lined to the tag, and i don't think Wikipedia currently references this term. 198.151.8.4 (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that. Yes, it seems like discussion of this wouldn't fit at the existing sibling page, and I don't see where else it could be added, so unless someone else finds a good place and adds content about this topic, I'd agree with deletion. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:20, 17 August 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 16:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDB scandal → 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Borderline case, but because IMDB redirects to IMDb, I think this could lead to WP:SURPRISE that this does not relate to a scandal at the entertainment database owned by Amazon. 1MDB scandal points correctly, of course. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cannot find a notable scandal case relating to the IMDB database or Amazon or any other company except of course for 1Malaysia Development Berhad 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think both https://www.theringer.com/tv/2019/6/12/18661850/imdb-rating-system-problems-chernobyl and https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/movies/imdb-transgender-names.html (the latter of which is discussed in the IMDb article) would qualify, among others. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A reader who types "IMDB" but wants "1MDB" will end up at IMDb which has a hatnote that tells you the Malaysian fund is "1MDB" not "IMDB", and can then search for the right thing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as misleading. I saw the title and was immediately WP:ASTONISHED, as the nom suggested. Only after carefully reading did I even understand how we got here. Typing an "I" for a "1" seems implausible as a typo. While you could say visually similar in a sans-serif font, typing it as a search would either be a copy/paste or a deliberate switch (likely in order to appropriate recognition of IMDB). -2pou (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, but most definitely don't salt this one in the case where an IMDb scandal actually pops up. OcelotCreeper (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This redirect is a confusion since IMDB (Internet Movie Database) has it's own controversies as well per 1.Ayana UnitedStatesian and https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/7/18254548/film-review-sites-captain-marvel-bombing-changes-rotten-tomatoes-letterboxd that are not related or connected to 1MDB. WPSamson (talk) 02:45, 21 August 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. I also deleted the plural — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Greek organization → Fraternity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should this be retargeted to Fraternities and sororities? It seems that the current target talks more about organizations outside of college campuses, and they don't necessarily use Greek letters. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment can also refer to List of companies of Greece, no opinion on retargeting. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This could refer to any organisation in Greece, not just companies, or to organisations run by Greeks or about Greece (ancient or modern) anywhere in the world; and in countries which don't have Greek letter organizations (which is most of the English-speaking world), that is how "Greek organization" would be understood. Narky Blert (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is ambiguous and the redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget or delete. Americans would definitely expect this to point to an article on college fraternities and sororities (and not to the broader scoped Fraternity article). Non-Americans would expect this to point to an article relating to the country of Greece. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too ambiguous for a redirect. No problem if someone wants to turn it into a disambiguation page, of course. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget The old link went to Fraternities and sororities since 2005, the first paragraph of this page defines what Greek organisation means so it is very relevant. though some people might assume greek orginisations might lead to a list of Greek companies and other entities, this is a long list and in no way is it a likely search. This solves the majority of the peoples concern. Also standard procedure is to leave long standing redirects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.26.8.4 (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (coming off the fence). The current target is undoubtedly wrong for most of the English-speaking world. Could also refer to The Greek's organization in The Wire. Narky Blert (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Greek organization(s); the plural form also exists. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – while this is a plausible search term and I wouldn't want to obstruct anyone's ability to find our article on Fraternities and sororities, that article is the top result in our internal search, so I think that the loss is minimal. The redirect also doesn't see much use. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 24 August 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 no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 🍜 → Wikt:🍜  (links · history · )     [ Closure: retarget ] 

I would like to reopen my discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#🍜. I realized that typing "🍜" in Google search gives many results for its use as Ramen. On social media also, this emoji used for Ramen. I also looked at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#🥘, and the 🥘 emoji redirects to Paella#In popular culture. So, analogously, 🍜 should also redirect to Ramen#In popular culture. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Whilst I sympathise that Enwiki has made a dog's breakfast of redirecting emojis, the last discussion was 2 weeks ago and nothing's changed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, please remember to actually add RfD tags to redirects in question; I have gone ahead and done this for this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So what is the problem here? Ramen is the first word in the current target, and it provides the real context of what the icon actually is (steaming bowl). The paella example at least provides a reference, whereas Ramen does not (I am discounting emojipedia). I'm not !voting Keep just yet, but I fail to see what Ramen#In popular culture provides for anyone that the current target does not. Some extra prose and dates? —2pou (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just checked the Emojipedia reference listed, and the title of the linked article is "Steaming Bowl", not "Ramen" as currently labeled. Likewise the context is less focused on ramen. This makes me think the info in Ramen#In popular culture is being misrepresented, anyway. Being a *pedia site, though, perhaps it was simply user-edited at some point? (Earliest Wayback entry is still "Steaming Bowl", though) -2pou (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It always takes time to find references. One day a reference will be added for Ramen like is there for Paella. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Ramen#Emoji, where this is explicitly covered. If that changes, then we can reevaluate. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Do not retarget to Ramen#Emoji. A bowl of ramen appears in its current target, so there’s no need to change this since the topic is already covered there. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:59, 24 August 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 no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dragon One → SpaceX Dragon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Reopening this RfD for clearer consensus. Retarget to Dragon 1 (disambiguation). Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support retargeting to Dragon 1 (disambiguation). Unlike Dragon 1, which should definitely remain as the primary topic, pointing to SpaceX Dragon, this one is less clear. The SpaceX program is rarely called "Dragon One", written out like that, and there is also Dragon One Entertainment Group, which really does use the "Dragon One" title written out. So per WP:SMALLDETAILS this could point to the disambiguation page, while the "Dragon 1" would remain as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  the "Dragon 1" would remain as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT.

  Please, please, please understand me! Do you want to rename SpaceX Dragon to Dragon 1 per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? If someone release a book titled Dragon 1, should the book be about the Dragon spacecraft? --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Soumya-8974: No, I'm not suggesting we rename those pages, I think they have the correct names, according to the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Buy that's not the question we're asking. "Dragon 1" can still primarily refer to "SpaceX Dragon" even when the article is not titled that. As if says in WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT: "The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary." If you believe that it's not the primary topic, then a case has to be made for that, with evidence. cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above; tag as ((R from ambiguous term)). Narky Blert (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Sonic678, Joseph2302, J947, and Shhhnotsoloud: Pinging participants from the previous discussion who have yet to participate in this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think "Dragon One" should target the same thing that "Dragon 1" does. There's a hatnote at the target to Dragon 1 (disambiguation) which also covers "Dragon One". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. Dragon One and Dragon 1 should both have the same target, no need to make any changes. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:43, 15 August 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. Pinging Shhhnotsoloud who indicated that they intend to take follow up actions after this closes as delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Kiwi sticker → Price look-up code  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure that a price look-up code is known as a "kiwi sticker", or that a kiwi sticker is a price look-up code. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are other redirects for specific fruits or brands pointing to the same target: Apple sticker, Tomato sticker (to be fair, apples & tomatos are shown in an image at the top of the article), Peach sticker, Avacado sticker ( [sic]), Banana sticker, Chiquita sticker, Pear sticker, Plum sticker. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I missed that (I was coming from Kiwi... not Price look-up code, but I should have checked). If this RfD results in delete I'll nominate the rest. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most of the results I'm getting are referring to stickers of a picture of a kiwifruit. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:05, 18 August 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 16:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Achillea ambrosiaca → Achillea#List_of_species  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The plants wikiproject prefers red-links to non-existent species articles. - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per project preference and WP:RED. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons as stated above. Leo Breman (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This redirect is mentioned in that target, but no need to link it. Seventyfiveyears at 00:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is worse than useless to redirect a valid species name. Can a bot be tasked with finding more examples? Abductive (reasoning) 06:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - accepted practice at WikiProject Tree of Life is to leave accepted taxon articles as redlinks. The species is accepted at Kew's Plants of the World Online.[3] You might consider adding several pages to the discussion: Achillea ochroleuca,[4] Achillea setacea,[5] and Achillea tenuifolia[6] (though probably not Achillea magna (synonym in POWO) and Achillea squarrosa (unplaced/needs more research)). —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 12:02, 17 August 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 Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Petitions → Wikipedia:List of petitions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Currently links to Wikipedia:List of petitions; would be better pointed to (the relevant clause of) Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 16 August 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 Withdrawn. Withdrawing as nominator. This page was expanded into an article and is therefore no longer a redirect. (non-admin closure)
SSSB (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2020 2nd Silverstone Formula 2 round → 2020 Formula 2 Championship  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Requesting redirect deletion to promote article creation (WP:RfD#D10)
SSSB (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it appears that this redirect was turned into an article ~12 hours after this listing. I think the listing should be closed as it is no-longer relevant. A7V2 (talk) 08:47, 17 August 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 19:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Neon genis evangellion → Neon Genesis Evangelion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Neon genssi evangelion → Neon Genesis Evangelion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Miscapitalized and a double misspelling. The first misspelling is too implausible. Also nominating another miscapitalized + implausible misspelling combo. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete these unambiguous errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete unlikely misspellings --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:12, 18 August 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 19:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Family Jewels (American Horror Story) → American Horror Story  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As far as I can tell, no element of the television series American Horror Story has ever been titled "The Family Jewels". -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:17, 16 August 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. Note that anyone searching for his name after the redirect has been deleted will still see relevant internal search results and will be able to find the current target with minimal effort. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Joe Bishop-Henchman → 2020 Libertarian National Convention#Chair election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete: The redirect points to a section on the subject's election as LNC chair, which includes no substantial biographical information about the subject. The redirect should be deleted to allow for the existence of a red link to encourage article creation. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 22:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Given that the subject is currently the national chair of a national polititical party, he is likely to be searched on Wikipedia. So it is useful for his name to be included as a search term. Also, there is legitimate potential for article creation (given that he arguably meets the criteria of WP:NPOL already and the past half-dozen or so LNC chairs have articles), and a red link is not a necessity for encouraging article creation. Sal2100 (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The redirect you created points to a short paragraph on the election that contains no biographical information on the subject. The fact that he is notable is exactly why we should have a red link; so that people will see that an article does not yet exist. Having blue links obscures that fact. You have not explained why the paragraph you've linked to is an appropriate redirect; you've simply stated that you want a redirect (possibly any redirect) to exist. This is not the place to argue generally against the usefulness of red links. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:36, 15 August 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 19:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hej (interjection) → Hey (interjection)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Kill it. WP:FORRED. (I'm about to put a soft redirect at the target to Wiktionary anyway; this doesn't even warrant that much). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 22:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to wikt. It is a foreign-language term, but it appears in otherwise English-language adverts for IKEA and in stores. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd oppose even that much. Soft redirects to Wiktionary are overused already (the one for "hey" is already probably overkill, but it existed for a long time, and it was easier than the hassle of a full AFD); this one is pretty recent and serves no real purpose. Wikipedia is not a translator. The disambiguator on the title makes it even less useful for that anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to wiktionary. Airbornemihir (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nej tack, this is English Wikipedia and foreign redirects do not belong here, see the policy WP:FORRED. They should not even go to Wiktionary, it can be searched separately. Deletion is the only correct option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FORRED. I wouldn't consider the IKEA connection to be enough to validate a Wiktionary redirect and bypass the WP:FORRED concern ... I mean, IKEA is a Swedish company, and this redirect is in Swedish, as well as possibly other languages. Steel1943 (talk) 05:30, 20 August 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 19:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Drug busting → Drug-related crime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per the RfD discussion for Drug bust, which closed as "delete". Drug busts aren't mentioned at the current target, and it seems that other suitable targets don't exist. Not a very active user (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per RfD for drug bust redirect. Not a term likely to be searched and not an alternative name for the article so redirect is not appropriate. It serves no useful purpose.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:43, 16 August 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.