Talk:Nortwest Airways

This is actually a typo of "Northwest Airways" - the original name for "Northwest Airlines." So this is a plausible redirect. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Which is silly beyond words. How many ways can you misspell Northwest? Hundreds of ways and should there be a redirect for each one?- William 19:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as a misspelling is plausible it's completely allowed as plausible misspellings are an entire category of redirects.
 * Speedy says that "implausible typos or misnomers." are targeted under R3, and those most have been recently created. The redirect really stems from 2010.
 * Redirects_for_discussion says that "If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect."
 * I saw a misspelling used by a user on a discussion forum. I thought "okay, it's plausible! It's just one letter!"
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you'd look slightly, you would notice this page was deleted and then you re-added it. Look at the history.-
 * Well, yes, because the deleting administrator said that he would not interfere if I did so. Please keep edit summaries in mind. If you still wanted to challenge this page, you use "Redirects for discussion" - It's there for a reason! WhisperToMe (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... this is a plausible redirect for the original airline name, "Northwest Airways" (the airline's name changed to "Northwest Airlines" in the 1930s). Plausible redirects are clearly allowed and encouraged on here. --WhisperToMe (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Stop littering my talk page and stop editing what I write.- William 19:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Where have I "edited what you wrote"? (Diffs would be nice)
 * You're blind. Look at what you did in this edit of yours.- William 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. It must have been a "edit conflict" - Because to contest a speedy I needed to have it placed on the talk page, and the process may have overwritten your first reply. I did not intend to remove comments. I do not remove comments like that. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This belongs at "Redirects for discussion" where there is a true venue for discussion
 * Don't use "speedy" except in obvious deletion cases. This isn't an obvious case.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a obvious case. A redirect page for a potential typo is absurd. One editor agrees already.- William 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on my interpretations of how speedied are handled, "redirect page for a potential typo" is precisely what's allowed and permitted. One editor may agree with your point of view, that doesn't warrant a speedy.
 * A "redirect page for a potential typo" can't be speedied unless it's implausible. If you want to challenge it, it must be challenged under "redirects for discussion" - And I will open the discussion myself, if you want.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as an FYI - "Editor who keeps reverting work, and shopping for sympathetic administrators." - It's not inappropriate to "SHOP" if one wants a wider audience, i.e. taking it to AFD or to a noticeboard. The consensus of the many overweighs the few. It would be inappropriate shopping if you go from, say, one group to a separate group, but make no attempt to go to a wider audience.
 * One doesn't HAVE to do a speedy in every instance. Why have things be decided now? Just wait and let the community decide. Let many people see it, and make decisions.
 * "Work" (being speedy rationale tags) will get reverted if the speedy rationale does not describe the actual situation. Speedy deletion should be a conservative, careful process. When there is a doubt, use "Redirects for discussion"
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)