Talk:holiness

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

holiness

Alternative spellings... hardly. They all look like obsolete alternative spellings to me. — Paul G 12:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Archaic English is still English, {{rfv}} would seem more appropriate. Holyness should be kept with a note next to it, but since the other two are currently red links, they need either creating or removing. I'll work on it. Mglovesfun 10:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep, both of them get about 800 hits on Google books, it's better to start the articles than delete the red links. Mglovesfun 10:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how a spelling being both obsolete and alternative outs it in violation of WT:CFI. It might be worth determining whether the spellings are actually from modern English by dating valid attestation citations. OED might be quicker than RfV. DCDuring TALK 10:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, they are obsolete spellings. I actually think the header should just be =Spellings=, so we can include obsolete ones (so marked) as well as still-current variations. Ƿidsiþ 10:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how a spelling being both obsolete and alternative outs it in violation of WT:CFI. It might be worth determining whether the spellings are actually from modern English by dating valid attestation citations. OED might be quicker than RfV. DCDuring TALK 10:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No use of either after about 1650. OED alone has enough quotations for attestation in Modern English. So the evidence seems to say that they are obsolete alternative spellings. All the spellings seem to have been in use simultaneously from 1500-1650. OED is not so good as a means of determining when the usage ceased.

Why do those facts warrant deletion? DCDuring TALK 11:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep. With b.g.c I can find at least a few modern citations of holyness that aren't quotations from older sources, including a 1940 quote from Ireland. So, that spelling may not be absent from all modern regional dialects of English, and would certainly be understood. It's not obsolete, in such a case, although it might be archaic. --EncycloPetey 14:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep, per Mglovesfun's first comment. 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Cited, properly tagged as obsolete spellings. --Jackofclubs 14:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)