Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eaux

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 keep and move to -eaux. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eaux[edit]

Wikipedia is not a reference of name origins, let alone a reference for a part of a name. Nuttah68 19:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ Actually Wikipedia is an excellent reference of names, orgins and uses. Just type in any name (your name, perhaps) and you'll likely find an article about it. This particular name is of linguistic notoriety. --Oakshade 02:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to Move to -eaux per Caknuck --Oakshade 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- "This particular name"? This article isn't about a name. Its about 4 letters that occur at the ends of various names. And you'll find that Wiktionary is the place where name etymologies can be found. Compare wikt:Hastings, a dictionary article about a proper noun, and Hastings, an encyclopaedia article about a place denoted by that proper noun. Uncle G 15:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you stalking me, Uncle G? Any way, 4 very important linguistic letters. Of encylopedic interest. --Oakshade 15:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - How do we know that they are important linguistically? Have you found any linguists writing about them? Uncle G 18:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - No I haven't nor have I looked. --Oakshade 21:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 13:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to -eaux. I'd suggest finding at least one more reference, but I'm in favor of keeping it, as it's an interesting phonological and morphological regional phenomenon. Moving it to -eaux would be more representative of the subject being a suffix, as opposed to a standalone word. Caknuck 17:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move, Keep per Caknuck The subject is easily a topic useful for researching a particular subject and therefore encyclopedic.Ratherhaveaheart 18:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update Per Caknuck's suggestion, I added a few references to the article. I'm still in favor of "moving" to -eaux. --Oakshade 22:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move — Move per above. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 01:07, 12 November 2006 (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.