Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To brunt

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. --Coredesat 03:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To brunt

To brunt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Dicdef. riana_dzasta 16:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as per nom. -- Whpq 16:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 17:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom. Is there anything to verify the definition? Also, if this was an article about a verb, it'd be just "brunt". –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 17:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • All I can find for 'brunt' is what we'd normally use - main burden, main impact, all that sort of thing. riana_dzasta 17:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• All the more reason to delete, I suppose! I haven't heard this term used outside of the normal usage, so it could be something completely made up as well by the user. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 17:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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.