- 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 Frappé. Tone 17:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod, thus listed here - Neologism of dubious importance, anyway a violation of WP:NOT a dictionary Travelbird (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to frappe as reasonable typo. Startpage.com sources not promising. JJB 15:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Redirect to frappe It is certainly a reasonable typo. Otherwise I would agree with delete per WP:NOT Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to frappe per reasons stated above. --m3taphysical (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Per above. Peridon (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to frappé to avoid double redirect. Although a fairly new word, 'frape' may gain more currency and a future article may be justified - but not yet. pablo 11:17, 29 October 2010 (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.