Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ay up

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. WJBscribe (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ay up

A contested prod, the article fails WP:V and author states in the talk page, which has since been blanked (diff), that the definition of the word described in the article isn't true therefore in violation of WP:HOAX —— RyanLupin • (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — As violation of WP:HOAX, no references, nn (even if it was true), and completely no EV. --Lord ₪Sunday 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not a hoax, people do really say that, but seems more like a candidate for Wiktionary than here.--Beloved Freak 17:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (Why do we even have a Category:Vocabulary and usage stubs?) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Eh oop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) created by the same Single-purpose account ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.76.238 (talk · contribs) _{18:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete this dictionary definition. Cliff smith ^talk 01:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary... Delete per WP:HOAX, after seeing this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what the original author claims, it is a real phrase/saying. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I still think it should be deleted but not as a hoax. --Beloved Freak 17:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its not in the dictionary. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it you deletionist fools! Its true as well, or have some of you yanks realized? --Deadlyfish (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge It is obviously not a hoax and the opinions of the editors who suggest this should be discounted as they cannot have read the article which contains a reference to the BBC - a source of the highest quality. The article might be merged to East Midlands English or some similar article on northern dialects but the phrase is so archetypal that it might stand by itself. Note that there is some confusion over the spelling for this. Charles Dickens used the form Eh'oop, while Eric Partridge has Ey oop. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. I rest my case --Deadlyfish (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2008 (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.