Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-letter English words

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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 08:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-letter English words[edit]

Transwiki, then delete - Though I am an avid Scrabble fan and see the utility of this page, this should probably be Transwiki'ed to Wikitionary. Djma12 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either major cleanup or delete. Article doesn't adequately cite sources. Monni 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The number of one letter words in proper English is way too small for a list. The vast majority on that list is from internet slang. Either rename to List of abbreviations of incredibly short words that were created because people are too lazy to type three letters or delete. Don't transwiki as it has no place in Wiktionary either. Koweja 21:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need to transwiki. Most of this is unsourced or unverified, and serves no real purpose other than to re-acquaint us with our ABCs. Agent 86 22:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agent 86. Danny Lilithborne 22:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agent 86. --UsaSatsui 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon reflection, no use in wikitionary either. Delete Djma12 23:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form, though it could use substantial rewriting and maybe a rename, as a useful directory of one-letter words, symbols, and codes. Some directories are encyclopedic and this is a reasonable topic. Newyorkbrad 00:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also AfD for analogous three-letter page. DMacks 03:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newyorkbrad. --Gabi S. 07:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Less usefull than 3letter and 2letter. If you do not know most of the information in the article already, you cannot read standard script FirefoxMan 16:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep. Possibly consider moving to one letter English word (or one letter word and internationalise). Though the information is obvious to most of us, it won't be obvious to all speakers of English. I have removed the text-speak, which I agree isn't encyclopedic. Source = any large dictionary. I guess the article could name a specific large dictionary if that would help. Martin 19:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The list of three-letter words is already gone, two-letter words is on the way out, let's not play the multiple AfD game again... in my opinion they should have been bundled. This is not encyclopedic content, it cites no sources for it's linguistic assertions and is simple a list of three 'words'. Wintermut3 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually, List of three-letter English words was kept and List of two-letter English words has a majority keep so far. Koweja 21:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With another article: I think this article should be merged into another article about short words. To be honest, there aren't enough one-letter words to make a whole article. Theresa123123123 13:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a bad idea at all. Monni 19:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps adding each Wikitionary entry for these to a category of x-letter words would be more appropriate? Noclip 20:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anything that would be notable would be in the articles about the individual letters. Maybe a category at best. Just H 20:37, 20 December 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.