Talk:Teanum Sicidinum

Admin! This page needs to be deleted. It started out as just a typo. I am just a simple member even though I've been on the Wikipedia for some 12 or 13 years. Please delete it for me! Pasquale (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pasquale If you consider this page should be deleted, the recommended course is to open a discussion at Redirects for discussion. It is not recommended to simply BLANK any page. Thank you Noyster (talk),  10:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Noyster My apologies. Nonetheless, this page, like possibly hundreds if not thousands of other similar typo-generated pages, should just be quick-deleted. There is not much to discuss. Somebody simply misspelled what should have been Teanum Sidicinum. I have noticed hundreds of similar cases. Once the original typo is corrected, nothing links to the page with the accidental misspelling, yet that page sits around forever (to be sure, redirecting to the page with the correct spelling). This is not good. By their very existence, these pages create the false impression that these are somehow bona fide "variant spellings". This is not good for knowledge (perhaps a quaint concern?) and is not good for the Wikipedia. Pasquale (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see your point Pasquale, but we have over 20,000 "redirects from misspellings" such as Untied States, which are not regarded as legitimate alternatives but are there to avoid failed searches and redlinks; occurrences in articles are listed here to facilitate correction. The present case is not quite the same, as the correct target Teanum Sidicinum is itself a redirect, and we avoid "double redirects".
 * You'd be requesting speedy deletion under criterion R3, recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. It would involve judgements as to whether the page was "recently created" (May 2013), and whether "Sicidinum" is an implausible mistake for "Sidicinum". I also note that the original mistake, which you have now corrected in Ovinius Gallicanus, has propagated to a range of other websites and this itself may lead to some attempted searches in Wikipedia. In view of the complications I still think Redirects for discussion would be the place to have this considered further. With regards Noyster (talk),  13:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your exhaustive explanations, Noyster. In light of what you said, which does make a lot of sense, I will not pursue it further, as it does not seem that important after all, or in any case not enough to warrant the time investment. Pasquale (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)