This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.
A misspelling of a specific entity, the only citation accompanying an actual quotation of the person. No secondary meaning. —MichaelZ. 2009-09-21 05:30 z
It's not breaking any CFI rules though. Delete just based on common sense, but as I say, no CFI logic for deleting it that I can see. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Could someone direct me to the consensus on what makes something a common misspelling vs an alternative spelling vs an excluded not-so-common misspelling? What is the proportion and/or absolute numbers of misspellings that is required for it to be common misspelling? Or is this just a vote? DCDuringTALK 15:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we have any. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted on the grounds I would speedy delete this if I found it lying around as "not dictionary material". Mglovesfun (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Restored on the grounds that:
the above grounds don't/shouldn't apply to an item on this page.
it is a fairly common misspelling of an entry that has not been shown to be not meet CFI. (Not that we actually have any explicit criteria for "common" in misspellings.) DCDuringTALK 19:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, unstruck. Delete as not dictionary material. I think anything can be misspelled, but we don't need an article in every case. FWIW we could add Georges Bush as a common misspelling of George Bush in French. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe should be deleted as a consensus, as Mzajac (who nominated it) and I say delete, and nodody says keep. Anyone wanna keep this, just say so. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
A b.g.c. there are 612 raw hits for this spelling and 1382 for the correct one (an error rate of 30.6%). Those are edited works. That is so common that we would call it an alternative spelling if it happened for a normal word. If it very much higher we'd probably tell him that he was spelling his name wrong.
I am appalled that this should be deleted on the arbitrary grounds advanced with so little support. The stated grounds seem arbitrary and capricious. I know of no valid grounds for deleting this, especially in the absence of any explicit standards of any kind for discriminating between common misspellings and any other kind or between misspellings of Proper nouns and of other kinds of terms. It is enough to make one wonder why this particular Proper noun is getting this treatment. DCDuringTALK 19:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess misspelling of proper nouns are rare on here, especially of a specific entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Arnold Schwartzeneggeris an entry, but was under RfV challenge at the time of this RfD. I think that invalidates the stateed rationale for the challenge. DCDuringTALK 19:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm more of a holist. Rather than applying the rules rigidly, I try and think if the entry is helpful to the reader or not. As pointed out, WT:CFI is so vague if you ask 100 different people, you'll get 99 different opinions on what it means. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
If 30% of the uses in edited works get this wrong, but one's intuition missed this, then perhaps one's holism needs more parts. Rules, data, and logic are three parts that enrich and validate my own holism. They have the advantage that they are sharable, that is, as objective as we can realistically get. There's plenty of room for holism in making rules, selecting and analyzing data, applying logic, and, especially integrating it, all in a way that doesn't create unproductive conflict. DCDuringTALK 16:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)