Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spindal

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 no consensus. I appreciate people may have been busy roasting turkeys and peeling sprouts, but I think the discussion has run out of steam. (Like the sprouts). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spindal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

To quote an earlier edit by Shhhnotsoloud, "this disambiguation page disambiguates no titles". Everything on the page would normally go under 'See also' as possible misspellings. A search for articles containing 'Spindal' brings up a couple of minor, partial-title mentions. Leschnei (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is one of those rare cases where it actually does makes sense to have a dab page for a misspelling. "Spindal" is a very plausible misspeling for Spindel, Spindle and Spindale. The search engine isn't able to auto-correct in this case, and the standard solution – creating the respective misspelt redirects for each of the three articles – will not work: we can create something like Spindal (surname) and Spindal, North Carolina, but we can't create anything suitable for Spindle as it's a dab page (we can't have Spindal (disambiguation) redirect to it as that page does not disambiguate "Spindal"). There is one article, Biomega (manga), which has a paragraph about a fictional character named "Kahdal Spindal" and that may be added to the dab page (though in my opinion that does not constitute substantial content worth including); the only other mention of "Spindal" is at Azad Zal, and that's almost certainly a typo for "spindle". – Uanfala (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepIf it was a plausible misspelling for one word, no-one would query a redirect. Because it's a plausible misspelling for three words, a dab page is appropriate. PamD 12:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This disambiguation page disambiguates no articles that could be called "Spindal". (My previous speedy delete nomination was reverted). Wikipedia is not a dictionary: we need not accommodate every possible misspelling. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fold, spindal and mutilate per nom. No such animal, and the number of possible misspellings of all article titles is enormous. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I can see how people who might get to this topic and having a good redirect is helpful. Keep in mind that we have WP:NOTPAPER, so there's no need to delete a useful disambiguation page just because we don't have other useful disambiguation pages. Michepman (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Except a disambiguation page with zero legitimate entries is not a disambiguation page. WP:ZERODABS is even stronger than WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Compromise redirect to Spindle (a dab page) with {{R from typo}}. If its purpose is as a typo, direct to the existing dab page. If some of Spindal's contents should be merged there, go for it. czar 01:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the three entries can easily be merge there, but probably not Spindale – it's not very similar to "Spindle" and so it's likely someone will remove it from there sooner or later. Also, Spindle is not a small dab page (it's got about 20 entries), so a reader who makes the typo when looking for either Spindale or Spindel will not be served well. I think deletion is better than redirecting (though of course, I still believe keeping is best). – Uanfala (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[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.