Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of words having different meanings in British and American English


 * 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 No consensus. Waltontalk 12:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

List of words having different meanings in British and American English

 * – (View AfD) (View log)



These lists originated as spinoffs of American and British English differences. The editors who used to work on that page thought that differences in vocabulary between American (AmE) and British English (BrE) could be divided into:


 * 1) words not used in AmE
 * 2) words not used in BrE
 * 3) words with different meanings in AmE and BrE

Unfortunately, this didn't work; this categorization turned out to be too rigid. Most of the words that are characteristic of BrE or AmE are by no means totally unknown in the other dialect, and therefore don't qualify as being "not used" at all in BrE or AmE; that would have meant leaving out a lot of AmE/BrE vocabulary differences. The pages List of words not used... were therefore moved to List of words not widely used... However, page #3, i.e. List of words with different meanings, is too rigid as well. Real words with different meanings are relatively few (cf. Trudgill and Hannah, International English); most of the time, you have either 1) words with one or more shared meanings and one or more meanings unique to one variety (e.g. bathroom and toilet) or 2) words whose meanings are actually common to both BrE and AmE, but which show differences in frequency, connotation, or denotation (e.g. smart, clever, mad). The article doesn't make such distinctions, and is in fact a confusing hodgepodge; it also features a lot of irrelevant information (such as "bird means 'avian creature'" and "read means 'to peruse written material'").

In addition, these articles are totally unmanageable and unmaintainable. Practically every day somebody adds a word to list #1 or #2 that actually belongs on list #3, or vice versa; often, someone will change or delete one or more entries on the basis of his/her personal experience (=original research: "I've never heard that" and the like).

But most of all, these articles violate several WP policies, to wit:
 * WP:WINAD. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, an idiom guide, or a list of dictionary definitions---and that's exactly what these articles are! Furthermore, many of the entries are slang-oriented, and Wikipedia is not a slang guide either.
 * WP:V and WP:RS. These lists are unsourced stem to stern.
 * WP:OR. As we have seen, these lists are extremely OR-prone.
 * List #3 is *very* long. According to Trudgill and Hannah, there are *thousands* of words that are used differently in AmE and BrE, so this approach is hopeless.

Bottom line: Lexical differences between AmE and BrE sure ought to be treated somewhere on Wikipedia. But that's not the way to do that; these articles have grown out of control, with no hope of completion or comprehensive correctness. It's time to start all over again, with a totally different, source-based, encyclopedic approach. As we have seen, there are both linguistic arguments and policy-related arguments to get rid of these pages. Futhermore, two similar articles were deleted a few months ago: Articles_for_deletion/List_of_idioms_in_the_English_language. Articles_for_deletion/List_of_British_idioms.

Note that there's no need to transwiki these pages to wiktionary, either: thanks to wiktionary categories (UK, US, etc.), a list of words used differently in BrE and AmE can be automatically generated.

Please keep from pleading usefulness, effort, or interest. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete agree whole-heartedly. Bulldog123 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, although I've contributed to this article. The main problem I saw was that it leads the reader to believe that there are only two dialects of English that matter, and all other dialects are somehow sub-dialects of them. An article that discussed the differences among the many, many types of English would be welcome, but to somehow pick out British English and American English and dedicate all kinds of articles to the differences between those dialects alone reeks of bias. Another problem is that people keep adding in unsupported urban legends about how words and phrases were created (such as the phrase "to ball up" having something to do with snow in horses' hooves - a daft Victorian bowdlerization and proven as such). -- Charlene 19:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've edited these articles 662 times. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a rubber to it.--Sandy Donald 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the lot of them. They are extremely useful, utterly fascinating, and a great deal of work has gone into creating and maintaining them - but they are fundamentally rubbish. I for one would like to spend less time correcting egregious errors in these three articles, and put some effort into helping to improve American and British English differences. Snalwibma 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete-the general rules on American and British English spelling differences should be sufficient to replace these lists wholesale.--Rossheth | Talk to me 20:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. Hard work should not be discarded, and interesting and useful material should be kept somewhere.  It somewhat shocks the conscience that the purgative itch has spread so far that these pages are thought worthy of being deleted, but the opening comments on this AfD are truly disheartening.  These lists are indeed useful and interesting compilations of words that are likely to cause misunderstanding or incomprehension between Britons and North Americans.  The information compiled here should be retained somewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, someday we're gonna bring back this stuff---in a different form. But why transwiki? This information should already be in the wiktionary, under the germane entries, duly categorized as UK, US, etc.  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's certainly not suitable for Wikipedia, but paper dictionaries often have appendixes like this; it seems suitable for Wiktionary.  Ƙ ɽ  ɨ  ɱ  ρ  ᶓ  ȶ  23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. No paper dictionary has such appendixes, to the best of my knowledge. Paper dictionaries have this information under the individual entries.  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * keep. Yes there are lots of issues here, and yes I'm sure I'm not alone in finding the term 'British English' somewhat annoying (I'm English, I speak English - I don't need some foreigner telling me what I speak!) but I think this is an important concept that deserves an entry in Wikipedia. Markb 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See my comment #1 below. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Honestly, what's so offensive about these lists?  Does every book we don't want to read have to be burned?  It strikes me that anybody who plans to travel across the Atlantic would want to know a bit more about the differences between the two nations that are separated by a common language.  Most of us LIKE lists.  Travelers like books of common phrases.  Differences and similarities between Transformers and GoBots-- good!  Differences and similarities between American and British English--- bad!  No wonder WikiGroaning is out there; and WikiSnickering is next.  Mandsford 00:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. That aside, your argument is a balanced blend of WP:POKEMON and WP:NOHARM. See also my comment below. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Violates WP:WINAD. Masaruemoto 04:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is not a dictionary, but that is. Resolute 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. Do not delete until Transwiki is complete. Leave explicit redirect from a stub replacing this article pointing to the article in Wiktionary. WLDtalk 05:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, or Transwiki to Wiktionary, or merge the three articles (which would be a lot of work). This is a very useful resource, which is what an Encyclopedia should be. I am British, but work with Americans and people whose first language is not English, and come across differences regularly. This list is unsourced because there is no other resource that has such a list. The criticisms are valid, but this list is needed. TiffaF 06:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument is null and void. 1) You are pleading usefulness. 2) "The article is unsourced because there is no other similar resource." Well, that's exactly the definition of original research. Boo. See also below.  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wiktionary, per Smerdis of Tlön.--JayJasper 16:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 09:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment #1. This one's for the keepers. Apparently you didn't read the "complaint."  I said, Lexical differences between AmE and BrE sure ought to be treated somewhere on Wikipedia. But that's not the way to do that; these articles have grown out of control, with no hope of completion or comprehensive correctness.  It's time to start all over again, with a totally different, source-based, encyclopedic approach..  Maybe you don't know that I've been constantly working on this topic since I joined Wikipedia.  This implementation, however, is a failure.  Some buildings are just too dilapidated to repair or remodel.  You can't help but tear down and rebuild them.  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment #2. And this one's for the transwikists---and especially my friend WLD. This material doesn't belong in the wiktionary as is; please note that List of idioms in the English language was transwikied and deleted right off the bat.  Luckily, however, wikionary has a Category:UK, a Category:US, and a most interesting Category:English words with different meanings in different locations; all you have to do is edit the (*already existing*) wictionary entries and tag them accordingly.   ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at wiktionary:Transwiki:List of idioms in the English language (A) and all other articles "List of idioms in the English language (x)" where x is A-Z. I think you'll find that "List of idioms in the English language" was deleted from Wiktionary because it was an inferior duplicate of the "List of idioms in the English language (x)" articles.  You'll note that the deletion is a Soft Redirect to a wiktionary category.  Now, I'm working on getting a round tuit to finish the work started transferring the Transwikied "List of idioms in the English language (x)" into Wiktionary proper (starting a Z and working backwards), so that each idiom has it's own entry.  It's slow work because I'm not familiar enough with Wiktionary, have high standards for citation etc. that are difficult to find the time to meet, and am extremely busy in real life. The point about all this is that the current "List of words having different meanings in British and American English" should be transwikied (your arguments for deletion are correct according to the current rules of Wikipedia) and used as a template for either a good article there; or good individual entries. I agree with other comments that point out that there are books on this topic: I have ISBN 0 902920 60 X [American-English, English-American : a two-way glossary of words in daily use on both sides of the Atlantic / [compiled and edited by Anthea Bickerton]. 1985.], with which I could probably reference a significant number of entries in the current article - this would provide citable, verifiable references (whether they are academically strong is another matter). WLDtalk 07:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   --  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 14:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Question for the Lumbaryard Man: Jack, you have certianly given this a lot of thought, provided some excellent arguments, and done a fair amount of work in this area.  Do you plan to rebuild a well-sourced similar collection of terms on wikipedia?  I realize that there are essays that devalue arguments such as the article being interesting and useful, but these are just essays (and not very good ones).  I would rather have folks find these pages with all of their problems than end up consulting the urban dictionary. -MrFizyx 16:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do. I'd like to start an American and British English lexical differences, along the lines of American and British English spelling differences and American and British English pronunciation differences, both of which are spinoffs of the main article and are fairly well written.  We could for example categorize lexical differences by topic: food, apparel, household, business, transportation, education, colloquial usage, etc., and include more obscure differences as well: to extend the real estate analogy, for example, try googling UK and US sites for renovate and refurbish.  Pieces of information such as "a bird is an avian creature" and "to read means to peruse" would naturally be left out.  I can find printed sources to support even the "renovate/refurbish" example.  As for the essays, they may not be excellent, but sure they're fun...  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case I support your nomination to delete and encourage you to follow-up on your plans to write an even more useful article. -MrFizyx 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep obviously relevant topic and WP:RSes could easily be found. This topic has been the subject of no fewer than 5 different general books available at Amazon.com for instance, plus a few others with specialized comparative vocabulary for theater/theatre, underworld, and the like and this only on the first page of 1000+ results for a book search at Amazon for "British American Dictionary" It exists, people are writing about it, and we're deleting it. Seems odd... Carlossuarez46 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Either you didn't read the discussion, or you are making a fool of me. EVERYBODY agrees that the topic is relevant.  On the contrary, your comment is totally irrelevant, since it evades the issue.  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't read the discussion. It takes a lot more than 8 minutes to get to this page, read it through, and post a six-line paragraph. I just hope the closing administrator takes this into account.  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The closing administrator should take into account your incivility and blatant intimidation. Carlossuarez46 21:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment This nomination appears to be an obsession, with twelve comments from the nominator about why this article should be deleted, many of them defensive... nothing uncivil, I suppose, but I haven't read the entire discussion. I don't know the Wiki precepts, don't care to memorize them, but I recall that the process should be limited to "non-controversial deletions".  This one appears to be controversial enough to be a "no consensus"... I hope. Mandsford 00:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I read through the nominator's comments, and the complaints seems to be about maintenance-related issues that are repairable. Citations can be added for individual definitions, unverified entries can be removed if appropriate, and poorly-categorized words can be taken out.  The list itself is supplementary to the American and British English differences article, and it does illustrate the differences between American and British English in a very useful way.  It should be kept.  Dr. Submillimeter 12:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not just maintenance, it's also WP:WINAD. And then come linguistic issues.  From a purely linguistic standpoint, the three-way classification (not used here, not used there, used with different meanings) is poor; we should gut-rehab the lists into something that makes more sense, merging them and then tearing them apart again.  But it's gonna take a lot of work; I believe that a categorization by topic would be more useful than a dictionary-like alphabetical list.  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Since you're working on an alternative that may be better, perhaps we can keep this article until your project is complete.  You can't tear down the old bridge before the new one is ready to cross.  I'm curious how far along you are on the job.  When your article is ready for posting, please be assured that we will be just as adamant, as we are about this article, about saving your hard work from those who wish to delete it.   Best wishes. Mandsford 17:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please note that I've worked on these articles, in their current form, more than anybody else.  Another issue is that we currently have a lot of entries that explain basically the same thing, e.g. toilet, bathroom, john, restroom, loo, W.C., with a lot of redundancy and data fragmentation.  A possible solution could be this User:JackLumber/Draft of American and British English lexical differences.   ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not obsessing (4th comment for me), but since you asked us to look at your rough draft, I would say that it combines lists #2, #3, and #4 but doesn't appear to be a substitute for the first one that you nominated... it appears that #1 is the product of steady evolution, also combining #2, #3, #4 in a nicely organized form, with columns separating AmE and BrE and words common to both languages; as with your prototype, there are explanations of the meanings. I like the Neapolitan ice cream approach of the current list, rather than the alphabetical list that mixes AmE and BrE words together in one smoothie.  Mandsford 23:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Where's list #4? I nominated three lists. The problem of the current approach (which I prefer to term the double-entry bookkeeping approach) is that it's linguistically WRONG.
 * Most of the words that are characteristic of BrE or AmE are by no means totally unknown in the other dialect, and real words with different meanings are relatively few; most of the time, you have either 1) words with one or more shared meanings and one or more meanings unique to one variety (e.g. bathroom and toilet) or 2) words whose meanings are actually common to both BrE and AmE, but which show differences in frequency, connotation, or denotation. The double-entry bookkeeping doesn't make such distinctions.  You can't smoothly explain how the words smart, clever, mad, rubbish, rent, quite, rather, renovate, refurbish, and hundreds more are used, with them friggin' columns.  Them friggin' columns are just factually inaccurate---and take up an enormous amount of space to boot.  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 00:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * LANGUAGE IS NOT A REFRIGERATOR! Language is dynamic, it evolves, it can't be compartmentalized! ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 00:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right-- I miscounted; you're combining articles #2 and #3 into the prototype. I'm not computer savvy, so I guess #1 does take up a lot of space in its current format (161K for this article; compare to 82K for main BuffyTVS article; 43K for Buffy Summers, 5K - 10K for each episode article).  But the format of #1 imparts the most information in the most readable form, and inaccuracies can be fixed.  Again, no rational reason to delete these lists now, since there isn't much to take their place; the prototype was started in Oct '06, 4th edit in Dec '06, dormant until 6/22/07.
 * Gone as of 6/26/07. You happy now? May it rest in peace.  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps language can't be compartmentalized-- but comparisons and contrasts of the language of the U.K. and the U.S. would seem to require separating the two into compartments. As I think about it, I believe that language really is a refrigerator, preserving its contents for public consumption, ready to receive additions. Some of the items have gone stale, no longer consumed, but left in the refrigerator until they are no longer recognizable. Definitely an interesting analogy. Mandsford 02:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. William Avery 12:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete Keep. As a fairly regular contributor to the articles, I'm reluctant to see them go, but I don't think there's any answer to Jack's points - they're a blatant violation of WP:RS and WP:OR.  However, I would also add the comment that, if we decide on deletion, we shouldn't attempt to recreate the content.  If the content is (in principle) acceptable, and the issue is just about the formatting of the articles, then deletion is not the way to go; resurrecting the merge proposal would be a better idea.  On the other hand, if the content isn't acceptable (mainly for OR reasons), it will remain unacceptable no matter how it's reformatted.  The lists are very useful indeed, but Wikipedia isn't (apparently) the place for them. Tevildo 20:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are convinced that no reliable sources could be found? Then why advocate a re-creation of the material? It RSes can be found, then deletion is unwarranted. Carlossuarez46 21:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm convinced that no reliable sources can be found for the material as it is currently. The lists have been put together by lots of individual editors on the basis of their own knowledge of usage - undeniably OR.  If the lists are going to be sourced, we're going to have to use dictionaries, which will violate WP:WINAD, and which won't give us the discrimination that the lists need.  And, just to repeat, I'm actively advocating against re-creation of the material, if we get a "Delete" decision.  Tevildo 00:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe ISBN 0 902920 60 X [American-English, English-American : a two-way glossary of words in daily use on both sides of the Atlantic / [compiled and edited by Anthea Bickerton]. 1985.], which I mentioned earlier, meets the main Wikipedia criterion of a source written in policy: it is verifiable, and "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". It is a (small) book, not a web-page. It has actually been republished. It's not the 'Transatlantic Journal of Lexicology', but it is a start. As for whether it is sufficient to meet the reliable source guideline (not policy) is a different kettle of fish, and possibly not relevant to this AfD. WLDtalk 08:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are also Divided by a Common Language: A Guide to British and American English by Christopher Davies (an Englishman; published by Houghton Mifflin) and Mighty Fine Words and Smashing Expressions: Making Sense of Transatlantic English by Orin Hargraves (an American; published by OUP). Both are guides to British and American customs and culture as well as language.  But neither of them feel the need to remind the reader that read can mean "to peruse and understand written material."   ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing my opinion based on the above. If the material can be sourced, then the articles should stay and be properly referenced, not deleted merely because of formatting problems. Tevildo 23:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - your first argument (WP:DICT) is bollocks/bullshit, because then all lists of words would have to be deleted. Your second and third arguments are essentially the same, lack of sourcing is not a criterion for deletion. We can tag it with unrefart and look for some sources, they sure exist. If you want to delete this one, then try to delete all language-related lists at once. Bonne chance.  Sala Skan  22:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A list of words is not necessarily a dictionary. See for example List of words censored by search engines in the People's Republic of China (!)  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -I agree with what Salaskan said. Lord of Light 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. -- Steve Hart 14:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is beginning to look like 'no consensus' WLDtalk 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * At the moment we have 11—5.5—5.5 (D-K-T). ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if this were a vote, that would be 'no overall majority'. As we know, AfDs are not votes, but overall, actions are meant to be taken on consensus with a bias of 'no consensus = no action'. At the moment, the only way to argue this is to say that those not arguing for deletion (either immediately, or after a transwiki) are not taking policy into account - whereupon Wikipedia becomes a vast Nomic, at the beck-and-call of those who know how to play the game. WLDtalk 21:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or Transwiki to Wiktionary if deemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I agree that not the whole article is useful, but some entries are particularly valuable (like "table an item from the agenda" etc). 128.211.171.197 18:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The table example is featured in the main article. Anyway, lexical differences between EngEng and USEng are to be covered, that's for sure. We still have to figure out how.  11—6—6 (D-K-T).   ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we already did figure out how. Ten want to delete these lists, and twelve don't.  It was 6-0 in favor of deletion at the beginning, so the tide did turn.  We all seem to feel strongly about this.  The difference is that if it's kept, we don't HAVE to look at it.  If it's deleted, we CAN'T look at it.  Mandsford 22:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Transwiki to wiktionar. I found this article useful as an American living in England. 78.145.8.18
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary, per above. Will (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 11-6.5-7.5  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z...... Mandsford 22:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete after transwiki, if someone undertakes the latter job. `'Miikka 01:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete after transwiki. There are several kinds of list:
 * paradigm lists -- samples every type of difference (e.g. unknown in America; considered obsolete in Britain; used only ironically in America; considered offensive in Britain; applied only to children in America; used only in the metaphorical sense in Britain; etc. etc.) Such a list would be useful IMO; the current articles are nothing like that.
 * glossaries -- a set of structured lists of differences by topic, say, might be useful -- I think this is what JackLumber has in mind -- or possibly as an augmentation of existing dialect-neutral, topic-specific glossaries.
 * exhaustive lists -- this is possible for restrictive topics; the English language is not such a topic. These lists can only be exhaustive by replicating Wiktionary. Far easier to move them all over there and save duplication.  For subsequent maintenance, if you can't be bothered creating a Wiktionary account, just add your wee edits anonymously.
 * random subset lists -- this is what we currently have. Falling between all the stools, reading it all through is sometimes interesting, sometimes tedious, but never encyclopedic. It diverts both readers and editors from more productive work.

jnestorius(talk) 19:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Joesty---your description is most perfect. I actually prefer the paradigm kind of thing, as noted in the complaint and on the LOWHDMIBAAE's talk page: Just because a word displays British/American differences doesn't mean it's "mostly used in one variety" or it has "different meanings."  Usage, frequency, denotation, connotation, register,...  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment fundamentally, the nominator doesn't like the current state of the article and intends to write another to replace it. Such a deletion is against policy. There seems to be no dispute as to whether the subject is encyclopedic (reliable sources are available for the subject -- whether those sources bear out every detail of the current content is no reason to delete -- one editor's view is to the contrary, notwithstanding the cited books, which I will assume that editor has read to be sure). If the pages are in such a need of a re-write the proper procedure is to propose the alternate on the talk page or create it in userspace and reference it on the talk page, rather than make the community take it on faith that this article will indeed be written, will be better than the current one, and will properly attribute any prior versions as per the GFDL.  We all have come across an article in our humble opinions we'd prefer to delete and start from scratch. Fortunately, you can propose your own version for community review and consensus. Unfortunately, we cannot just delete something because we would rather re-start from scratch. Carlossuarez46 00:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carlossuarez46 and others. Wholesale deletion of popular harmless huge collaborations like these are harmful to the Wikipedia community.  Instead of putting energy into deleting them, add tags which explain their defects, and put an effort into improving them. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 08:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the trouble is, it is not a "harmless collaboration" but a ragbag of nonsense and rubbish which takes an enormous amount of energy to keep straight. Unwatched for a day or two, it degrades into unreliable and misleading uselessness. It attracts a fantastic quantity of original research and unfounded personal opinion. The problem is the list structure, which acts as an invitation to add "my two-cents-worth" or "my tuppence-worth". I am sure the many contributors are well-meaning, but most of what gets added is nonsense (and/or duplication) and needs to be deleted. Jack is right - the only solution is to delete the lists and replace them with a proper encyclopedic article covering the nuances of different usages. Snalwibma 09:06, 28 June 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.