Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of case sensitive English words

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP Rob e rt 23:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of case sensitive English words

This list seems to be a blatant violation of Wikipedia Is Not A Dictionary. No encyclopedic content. Delete. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Might be encyclopedic if a discussion on how different words come to have the same or simialr spellings, and the list was used asn an illustration, or even if some analysis if the included words and their sources was presnet. (Besides several of the entries are currently incorrect: for example "see" in the sense of the seat of a Bishop's authority is capitalized only when part of a specific proper name, when discussed in general it is not.) DES ^(talk) 21:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I improved the intro. BTW, Holy See and similar are not proper names, as they can be precedeed by an uncapitalized article (i.e. "the Holy See"). Proper names are never precedeed by an article, unless the article is part of the name, in which case the article would be capitalized too. (E.g. A Clockwork Orange or The Cure.) --Army1987 17:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep interesting and maintainable. I don't understand the invocation of WP:WINAD, since it's hard to imagine a dictionary having such a list in it. Compare the excellent and useful List of words having different meanings in British and American English for what this could become with a little work. — brighterorange (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep but needs to be seriously worked and expanded.Hektor 22:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the sort of thing found in most dictionaries at all. Part of an encyclopaedia of language, which is clearly one of Wikipedia's roles. CalJW 22:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is moderately interesting, and eminently maintainable. It's just the kind of thing we can have in Wikipedia which Britannica wouldn't have. I don't agree with the WINAD point, since it gives no definitions. -Splash^talk 23:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quirky but interesting, and not likely to go on for too long... --MacRusgail 15:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Where else would you find this? Gary 15:40, 5 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.