Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blimey

Discussion from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion:

Blimey! not enough good enough for Wiktionary Dunc Harris | Talk 12:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Stone the crows, guv'ner! I've expanded this a bit to see if it deserves to stay. DJ Clayworth 16:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it actually might have enough now to make it as a stub. The origins of the word bit is nicely encyclopædic. blankfaze | &#9835 17:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly worth being in the Wiktionary, at least. Not sure about being in Wikipedia though. Average Earthman 18:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Current content definitely belongs in Wiktionary. Dictionaries traditionally describe a word's origins. I see no obvious way to ever expand this orphaned article past the definition, though. Wiktionary and ~~delete~~. Rossami 18:38, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wiktionary. Agreed w/ Rossami. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:54, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Lev 18:55, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to wiktionary.~~ Thue 19:15, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, redirect to Minced oaths. Thue 20:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - Good redirect, but also recommend sending the current version to Wiktionary. Rossami 21:20, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    - I don't think Minced oaths describes blimey at all. I was very confused at the link when I first looked it up, as there is no reference at all. Stupidone0 05:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]