Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booster bag scam

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. They're WP:CHEAP. Anyone interested in performing a merge is free to use the page's history to do so. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Booster bag scam[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn't look like a very good article. Should probably be deleted. Elevator85 (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ - Criterion #1 under WP:SK "nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion." --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect - I guess I should have looked closer for another article it could go into. Changed my !vote accordingly. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note ~~No longer valid, now that Tokyogirl has added a delete !vote.~~ (Also, I figure that the comment which is now under the delete vote was meant to be there and not here.) Ansh666 05:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's already an article for this at Booster bag. There's no need for a separate article. I don't really see where we need this as a redirect, as anyone typing this in will be more likely to come across simply "booster bag" if this is what they're looking for. Scam is sort of superfluous when it comes to the search term. This article is earlier, but the other search term is far more likely to be found and is slightly better written. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although... I can kind of see where this should probably be moved to Wiktionary. I can find articles that mention this in relation to various thieves, but what we have here is essentially a definition. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

Merge content into booster bag. This is a duplicate article on the same topic. 4.238.1.122 (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to booster bag. Don't delete, for external link purposes (article has been around since 2006). A412 (Talk • C) 04:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to booster bag. No need for two articles on the same thing. Info can be merged if well cited. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to booster bag per above (as WP:CFORK). Ansh666 05:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fork. Unlikely search term, which is the actual article name, plus another word. No need for a redirect either for this or for Booster bag shoplifting, Booster bag theft gear, Booster bag merchandise removal technique, etc. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - If there's anything salvageable about the article, but that in booster bag, otherwise a straight redirect is fine. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Delete I agree with Carrite in that I think someone would search "booster bag" before "booster bag scam." However, I don't think a redirect would be bad either.—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 18:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.