Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leaky

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 redirect to Leakey (disambiguation). And merge from history as desired. Sandstein 11:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaky

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

A dab page with no valid entries, just a partial match and a link to a name page with a similar spelling. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Leakey (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 16:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I doubt that many readers are going to search for "Leakey" at "Leaky", and vice versa. If we keep, we should add Leaky bucket, which is a far better known algorithm. But we can't do that, because per WP:PTM we don't dab partial matches. Hence, delete. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Leakey (disambiguation) per WP:ATD. Potentially WP:USEFUL, spelling error would be easy to make. Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a plausible (and very obvious) redirect to Leak, this page is not eligible for deletion (WP:R). James500 (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Leakey (disambiguation). Intending "Leakey" seems much more likely than "leak".^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – OK, I can see a redirect to Leak or Leakey. Some people may misspell the surname "Leakey". But what are we going to merge? There is a link to Leaky abstraction and a "See also" for Leak. The destination article "Leakey" already has a "See also" for Leak (disambiguation). Are we going to add Leaky abstraction? That really does seem far-fetched, that a user who types "Leakey" would be looking for the theories of a programming guru. It also violates WP:PTM, according to which we don't dab partial matches. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2015 (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.