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. As noted, relevant material appears to already exist at Australian English, so no merge is necessary. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Varieties of Australian English

[edit]

This is largely OR - reference to the three categories can be restricted to Australian English. StAnselm (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - surely this doesn't need to come to AfD if a merge is all that is being asked for. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge into Australian English#Varieties of Australian English, which is much better sourced and tighter overall. There may be a few salvageable points here, but mainly just redirect to the better-written version. --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would suggest a merge to [[Australian English, but all the salient points already appear to be there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - and salvage anything that can be put into Australian English Satu Suro 07:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and roll any unique information into Australian English. Sadly this article has no references so there's really little defense that can be offered. Phrases like "Most linguists consider..." sound like weasel words. Format (talk) 18:20, 9 March 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.