Deletion of Lists of American and British words

Comment: This article is not in contravention of . #DICT|DICT1 says: "Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well." This article does. #DICT|DICT2 says: "Descriptive articles about languages, dialects or types of slang are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not." This is (but could be better) descriptive and certainly not prescriptive. Merge, if you like. Split, if you like. Clean-up, please, but it does not meet deletion criteria
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: This is a great list. Perhaps it is time to modify the  guidelines. If OR is really a problem, tag the worst offenders with {{cn
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per Pharmboy and Doubleblue. The articles could be merged. They could also be improved via normal editing, including addition of references to substantiate the differences between the versions of English. There are numerous print sources which discuss the variation in the language, so there is a basis for improving the referencing. The editorial process can delete any O.R. Variation in language use in different English speaking countries has been the subject of sybstantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, and thus satisfies 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The nominator does have a point, and although  is not a good argument, and these articles tend to attract original research, they seem like valid encyclopedic lists. I can't give you a better reason than that though sadly
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INTERESTING)