Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual English words

This article is irreconciably POV. To move it to List of English words which some people hold to be unusual would be just plain stupid, and to leave it where it is would be to turn a blind eye to blatant POV. Plus, it isn't even a proper list! - Node


 * Delete. - Node
 * Keep. Looks interesting to me. Maybe needs some formatting -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 03:09, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, more than just a list. Maybe find a better title, but good content. Everyking 03:12, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename. Words in the English language with unusual syntactic characteristics? Agh, that's no good. Still, keep. -Sean 04:02, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps change "unusual" to "irregular". And if there is already an article on irregular words in English, redirect to that. WhisperToMe 04:39, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. How about "Unsual English Words" or "Uncommon English Words" for a title? Maybe some are more common than others?
 * To me, "Unusual English Words" is like if we had a page called "Most Beautiful French Women" where we had a list saying that "some people hold these women to be the most beautiful French women". My whole point is that "most unusual" is irreconcilably POV. Perhaps if we were to take each individual section and move it to a new article, such as "Longest English word", saying "The longest English word that can be found in ______ dictionary is ______. However, this word is not in common usage. The longest English word in everyday usage is ______. The longest English word in everyday usage that doesn't repeat any letter is uncopyrightable" - the "longest" word is indeed a fact, whereas "unusual" is subjective. This is akin to saying "French women with the largest busts" or "French women with the ____est _____" instead of "The most beautiful French women".Node
 * I see your point. But I disagree.  An argument about "most beautiful" would be more hotly contested than a more similar argument: most unusual looking where we'd all probably agree that the ten with two heads had a significant claim (indeed, head and shoulders) above Marilyn Monroe.  The article does explain why they're unusual: w as a vowel, 6 consonant letters in a row etc.  Try doing that for beautiful women.  You can't.  But unusual looking women: Her eyes are in the backs of her knees - you can.
 * The article is more a discussion of unusual properties of certain English words than a list of words that are unusual. As such, keep, but consider moving to a more appropriate title. -- Cyrius|&#9998 06:47, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like quite an interesting collection. Obviously quite a lot of work has gone into it.  ping 07:56, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fascinating and encyclopedic. Discuss the matter of a better name on its talk page. Andrewa 10:23, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but change the name. Anomalies of the English language, maybe?  RickK 22:19, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Rmhermen 23:45, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Gadfium 00:18, 1 May 2004 (UTC). Note that I don't think I've been here long enough to have my vote counted.
 * Neutral. But List of English words which some people hold to be unusual doesn't need to be the title for that to be the subject of the list. anthony (see warning)
 * Keep, but rename. Interesting subject. Philwelch 23:56, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with a number of participants. The name doesn't quite fit, but it's just the kind of cool little article I like to find when I'm thumbing through an encyclopedia. It's a little mind candy. They're not unusual words so much as words with unusual features. Can someone take that further? Denni 05:46, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my opinion, we need these sorts of things to keep Wikipedia from becoming a badger's onion. --SMWhat 03:38, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This material is essentially a bunch of linguistic trivia, not an encyclopædia article.  Besides, it's already better covered in other public sources, such as the rec.games.puzzles FAQs. Psychonaut 19:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Denni's comments.--bodnotbod 00:47, May 5, 2004 (UTC)