Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grabage tin

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grabage tin

Am I mistaken in thinking that standard policy is not to have redirects from mis-spellings of words? -- Dcfleck 14:22, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• Keep, harmless. And yes, you're mistaken (see Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?). This belongs on WP:RFD, by the way. —Korath (Talk) 14:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Whoops, I see you are correct, I am mistaken, on both counts. Sorry. -- Dcfleck 14:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion#Redirects, redirects can be speedy deleted if they're the results of typos. RickK 22:37, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - even the indefinitely large resources of Wikipedia will run out of space if we have every possible mis-spelling as an article. --Wtshymanski 22:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Misspelling "Condoleezza" (the example given on the policy page) and misspelling "garbage" are two completely different beasts. Presumably this is, as RickK said, nothing more than a typo. And if it isn't a typo, if someone misspells "garbage tin" in an article (though the redirect is currently orphaned), shouldn't we just correct the link? Junkyardprince | Tark 04:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Radiant_* 12:42, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.