Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of frequently misused English expressions

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 of the debate was Delete. Deizio talk 22:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of frequently misused English expressions[edit]

Inherently POV and practically begs for original research, or at least it would if anyone cared about the topic, and apparently they don't: it hasn't got past item number one since it was created 2 years ago. --Ptcamn 22:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 22:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
extremely weak keep. Can probably be expanded and tidied. Don't see that POV is automatic. And I've added a second phrase that qualifies. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Obviously it doesn't seem POV if you hold that POV. :-) If it is kept, I would strongly suggest it be moved to a name that doesn't include the word "misused". Things like List of English words with disputed usage and Disputed English grammar are more neutral (although to be honest I don't even like them). --Ptcamn 11:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I was going to add "To eat humble pie" (which means, to make do with what one has, rather than to become humble) and "To coin a phrase" (which means, to invent a new phrase, rather than to cite an existing phrase), but you know what? Wikipedia is not the Strunk and White manual. So, delete. ergot 15:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- has potential to be really interesting, but does that make is encyclopedic? Can I even spell encyclopedic? And Fowler's Modern English Usage can kick Strunk's arse. Sour grapes is another that no longer means what it used... -- GWO
Strong delete - "frequently" is POV, and "misused" is POV. The article's very title makes it entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia. LjL 14:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a pedant and grammar fascist of long standing, I still think this deserves deleting as P.O.V. Innit. Vizjim 14:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 06:47, 21 May 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.