Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Basic English core 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

A concensus has been reached to delete the page. Thank you for your participation in the discussion. — Encephalon 15:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Basic English core words
This article is nothing more than a conlang's list of words linking to Wiktionary. As such, per common practice and WP:WINAD, I have transwikied it to Wiktionary as an appendix (wikt:Appendix:Basic English word list), fixed all links to it, and put a big wiktionary box pointer to it at Basic English. It is now ready to be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Dmcdevit·t 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, not hurting anything, gives a sense of how basic the language is. Gazpacho 00:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not being erased, it has moved to Wiktionary, where it has been linked to now more prominently than the other list was. Of course it's not hurting anything. What does this have to do with the issue at hand? Dmcdevit·t 01:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless cleaned up. This appears to be one writer's POV regarding which words English words should be considered basic, yet the title and introductory context have an obvious matter-of-fact tone to them. — CharlotteWebb 02:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only is this one writer's opinion of the English core words, but it is taken directly off of another website word for word. What possible significance or reason is there for this to be an article on Wikipedia?  Wikipediarul e s2221 02:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. If it's already been moved to Wiktionary, it's ready to be deleted. Besides, WP:NOT. --BradBeattie 03:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per BradBeattie. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Trans-wiki to Wiktionary or just delete but unfortunately this is not suitable for Wikipedia. Cedars 04:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. (I see that db-transwiki only applies if AFD has already taken place.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I think there's a place for this article, just not wikipedia. MonkBirdDuke 08:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and User:MonkBirdDuke's comment. --JaimeLesMaths 09:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Trans-wiki wiktionary should have something like this but not wikipedia. James086Talk 11:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Recury 14:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete from wikipedia per nom. (I support the Trans-wiki already done by the nominator.) AubreyEllenShomo 17:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Per Commen Sense-- Sea dog  .M.S  00:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete An external link to these words can surely be found and would be sufficient, definitely no need for a Wikipedia article. -Elmer Clark 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment this is not just "one writer's opinion of the English core words" as many of the delete noms are stating (showing a disappointing lack of investigation into what they're voting to delete), this is "The 850 words as grouped and listed by C.K. Ogden in The ABC of Basic English (1932)", a notable concept (see Basic English) which has been promoted by such figures as Churchill and Roosevelt. Deleting this copy is fine, as all the links are to Wiktionary anyway, but I wish the earlier voter's would understand why it is fine. --Quiddity 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.