Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Cooper (badmington)


 * 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 Procedural close. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD.

(This AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.) (non-admin closure) jp×g 06:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Craig Cooper (badmington)

 * – (View AfD

Terrible misspelling of badminton. For me clearly a case of speedy deletion. --Florentyna (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Despite being asked to do so, nominator clearly has not read WP:Redirect:
 * Purposes of redirects
 * Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include:
 * Likely misspellings (for example, Condoleeza Rice redirects to Condoleezza Rice).
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Keeping means, every Person (badminton) will get a misspelled redirect Person (badmington). (And I'm sure, somebody will do this after the end of the discussion.) Means, we as contributors to an encyclopedia will massivley support misspellings. From the statistical point of view I think, nobody will search for Craig Cooper (badmington). Everybody will search for Craig Cooper. And if somebody knows, that there are different Craig Coopers, and ALSO knows, that there is an addition in brackets, this person will off course use the correct spelling. So please, no support for such really useless and terrible misspellings. Florentyna (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style is unambiguous. If you don't like what the MOS says, campaign to have the MOS changed. In the meantime, the MOS unambiguously says "Keep". Pdfpdf (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there is not written that every dyslexic creation must be introduced. Where it will lead us in the end? Bettminton, bedminton, baidminton, beadminton, bedmington, battminton, batminton, batmington, buttminton? Florentyna (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * a) Have you read the MOS yet? Your responses suggest that you still have not read it.
 * a) You are quite correct - it is NOT written that every dyslexic creation must be introduced.
 * c) At the risk of, yet again, repeating myself: The Manual of Style is unambiguous.
 * i) The MOS says "Likely misspellings". None of what you present are "Likely misspellings".
 * ii) If you don't like what the MOS says, campaign to have the MOS changed. In the meantime, the MOS unambiguously says "Keep".
 * d) You can ignore the MOS and re-state your irrelevant opinion and Point-Of-View as often as you like, but none of that is going to change the MOS.
 * e) (At the risk of, yet again, repeating myself: If you don't like what the MOS says, campaign to have the MOS changed.) However, please note: HERE is NOT the place to campaign to have the MOS changed.
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.