This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 14:59, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Just Delete. Words that are not worth their own entry in the dictionary are not worth a redirect in Wikipedia. This is just a regularly-derived inflected form of the word "prorogue" and means exactly what you'd expect it to mean. The dictionary just lists it under "prorogue" without comment. A redirect is not needed; it's almost inconceivable that anyone would search on "prorogued" rather than "prorogue." 02:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Dpbsmith typed one too many tildes Uncle G 21:34, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC))
So when someone puts "Parliament was prorogued" in an article, it should show up as a red link? Kappa 10:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, that's what pipes are for: Parliament was [[prorogation|prorogued]] will do it. If the article were under prorogue, you wouldn't even need a pipe: [[prorogue]]d would work. I repeat: if it doesn't even merit a dictionary entry, how can it merit an encyclopedia article? Dpbsmith(talk) 01:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The pipe technique is only slightly inconvenient for someone who knows about both the technique and the article prorogation. For someone who doesn't know about one or both, it's pretty much useless. Common typos don't deserve articles either, but we still redirect them. Kappa 09:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to prorogation. Why dilute Wikipedia content like this so that people can safely ignore the editing system? -Joshuapaquin 18:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.