Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of archaic English words and their modern equivalents


 * 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 Delete. @pple complain 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

List of archaic English words and their modern equivalents

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Having a list of archaic English words is about as stupid as having a list of modern English words. This sort of thing is a job for Wiktionary. Alivemajor 21:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Comment I think this article's interesting, but have no other view than that. Just wanted too say that if this does go, there's also a category Category:Archaic_English_words_and_phrases that will need not to refer to this article. Though maybe that the category exists, is a reason this article doesn't need to; I wouldn't know.Merkinsmum 02:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete — completely unreferenced original research. -- Ag ü  eybaná  21:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Although completely unreferenced, seemingly OR; instead of deleting what has obviously been hard work for somebody(ies), somewhere(s), can't it just be tagged with "needs citation?" and hope someone(s) rescues it?  What about a rename or redirect?  Even just adding the word common, as in "List of common archaic English words and their modern equivalents" could refocus the article and grab the attention of grammar historians.  I'm sure there are plenty of linguists and Old Englishists (pardon me) who could provide help who happen to troll the AfD or WP in general....just an outside opinion - (check the page history, I've never contributed) Keeper76 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Being unreferenced is a perfectly good reason to delete an article. Please read the deletion policy. -- Ag ü  eybaná  22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please provide a quote from that page to support your claim. MarkBul 00:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think it's OR (mostly), and I could probably reference it myself if I tried. But I want it deleted because attempting such a list is a silly idea. How would we determine what constitutes a common archaic word, anyway? Do you know of any sources that say how frequently words were used in the 16th or whatever century? --Alivemajor 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most dictionaries recognize a distinction between archaic words and obsolete words. Some of these words are neither (nought, wherefore, whither, …), and many of them may or may not be obsolete but are hardly archaic (coiner, costermonger, …). At a hasty glance, the only one I noticed that is certainly archaic is dream in the sense specified. In short, this is a random selection of terms most of which do not satisfy the conditions set forth in the article's title and and intro. A full listing of archaic English words would be massive—too massive to be included or maintained on Wikipedia. Deor 01:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Dhartung | Talk 03:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki & delete - WP:OR and unreferenced... as someone else said, "this is a job for Wiktionary". /Blaxthos 11:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I was prepared to love this article, but it takes up so much space to define a mere fifty words that it's going to be a logistical nightmare... since there are more than 50 archaic words out there. The title implies that it's a list of archaic words and a list of modern equivalents, but this one has origins, meanings, "can you use it in a sentence" type examples, and, as if that wasn't enough, additional comments.  I guess I could go on all day about the subtleties of the word ere.  Or I could simply write "ere = before".  Mandsford 14:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to delete after other's more convincing arguments. Just a shame that someone put so much work into this.  Keeper76 15:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Unfortunately, the work put into this seems wasted as it's neither accurate nor definitive. The inclusion of 'bilbo' made me wonder if a LOTR fan had stumbled across the original meaning of the word and expanded his/her enthusiasm into this. Kosmoshiva 01:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some of this belongs in a dictionary if it can be sourced, but a fair bit is inaccurate and will need thorough checking before being transwikied. Nuttah68 11:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete  ... archaic is a weasle word here ... what you might call archaic, I might be using everyday. The first para even states this. "kill'em all, and let wickionary sort 'em out." Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  07:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Verily thou shouldst dispatcheth yonder article with all the speed of the quinsy in a trollop's boudoir betwixt a cag-mag and the workhouse. Doth thine not agreest?.  WebHamste r  01:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is original research, and not very good original research at that. The list of words included is seemingly arbitrary, and some of them aren't really archaic at all—they are "still used in British English". Strad 04:03, 20 September 2007 (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.