- 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 of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 17:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary to have an article on a single English word to show that words underwent a spelling change. The information on the spelling changes should stay in English language. SCHZMO ✍ 23:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- strong delete This isn't even a dicdef; it's a "dicetym" or something. Entymology. Get rid of it. Fnarf999 23:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom and Fnarf999. Article is not, in fact, about its title. BillC 23:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Fnarf. Reyk YO! 23:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Zaxem 00:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - redirects are very cheap. This article is ridiculous on many levels. Grandmasterka 04:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Ye Olde Englyshe Wickipaedia, or (if that is not possible for some reason) delete. u p p l a n d 08:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Queen - English spelling was formerly not standardised, and most English words could be spelt several ways. The present content is too insubstantial to be worth merging. Peterkingiron 00:45, 15 May 2006 (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.