Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micruration syncope

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 micturation syncope. MBisanz ^talk 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micruration syncope

The author of this article has pursued this article in spite of a bold redirect by me, and a speedy deletion tag from someone else, so let's take it to AfD. This article appears to be about micturation syncope. We already have an article on that topic. This article's title appears to be a misspelling. The article is also written in medical shorthand, such that only someone with proper medical training can fully understand what the author is trying to say. (Disclosure: I am a doctor myself). Richard Cavell (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong/Speedy Delete and redirect to micturation syncope. Clearly an incorrect spelling. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the correct spelling. I agree that the notes form of this entry needs substantial rewriting, but the article micturition syncope is a very short stub, and perhaps the extra material will encourage someone to tidy it up. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I claim this should be deleted for housekeeping reasons, as this is a combination of a misspelled title as well as being not readily discernible to the lay reader. In other words, it would need a complete rewrite to be anything past the properly-spelled stub article. Hence, a redirect or a merge would not make any sense here. MuZemike (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside — I originally was going to claim G6 here, but I don't think the article quite fits the intent of that criterion for speedy deletion. Of course, I will not mind if someone disagrees with me and does a speedy on it; the same objective gets accomplished. MuZemike (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Delete~~/Merge' - Merge any relative information to micturation syncope. Than delete. I do not believe it is policy to redirect misspellings. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. JFW | T@lk 21:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is it policy to redirect mispellings? Thanks - PS: Just for my info. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Redirects from misspellings are in accordance with guidelines, and, more importantly, an article can't be deleted if content is merged elsewhere because the article history has to be available for copyright reasons. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Thank you - Struck delete and left merge. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think we can merge then delete — if we merge, we should leave the redirect in existence, to satisfy the GFDL. Though it's tempting to redirect and then apply WP:CSD#R3... —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple merge and redirect. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. A single-character typo (which is adjacent to the correct key) was apparently the cause of this article's creation. Merge the useful information and then redirect to the correct spelling. (EhJJ)^TALK 02:48, 3 December 2008 (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.