Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple past

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 no consensus‎. Please let a Merge discussion begin on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simple past (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think we should merge this with Preterite. Both talk about essentially the same concept. The article even says that preterite is an alternate name for simple past. TheLatinNerd (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 06:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. This article cites no sources. It is also possible to redirect to Preterite#English. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't notice earlier that there were no sources. Since there aren't, we should probably delete and redirect. TheLatinNerd (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete. Notable topic and a likely search term. This seems to be a subtopic of Preterite: that article covers preterite tenses in a variety of languages, whereas this article is about English specifically. No opinion on whether the article should be kept or merged/redirected to Preterite#English. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: User:TheLatinNerd placed {{merge from}} on Preterite and {{Article for deletion}} on Simple past at about the same time (02:40, 29 July 2023). I would recommend that this AfD be closed and a merger discussion started at Talk:Simple past. If such discussion reaches consensus to merge, it would seem to accomplish all the goals mentioned in this AfD: merging the content, creating a redirect, and retaining the title as a search term. Cnilep (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Closing the AfD and allowing for a merge discussion seems like a good solution to me. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. AfD is not the venue for this sort of article cleanup. This plainly meets GNG, and as both articles have hatnotes for each other I've no concern of a bad content fork having happened. Agree that the potential merge should be discussed on the talk page. —siroχo 12:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 12 August 2023 (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.