- 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 keep. This is one of the weirder nominations (SNOW??) that I've seen. CPORfan, perhaps it would be better for you to direct your efforts to the Indonesian wiki, as it seems that your mastery of English is perhaps not sufficient to contribute here effectively. Randykitty ( talk) 11:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
-ly
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- -ly ( | 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)
Delete due to WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The content is entirely unsourced and delete per WP:SNOW. CPORfan ( talk) 09:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Language. CPORfan ( talk) 09:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to English adverbs. The history and usage of the suffix are of encyclopedic interest and it's possible that WP:WORDISSUBJECT applies, but given the poor sourcing we might as well redirect it. If the fact it can be used to form adjectives too is a problem, redirect it to Suffix, where -ness etc. lead. (I'm at a complete loss as to how WP:SNOW is relevant here.) Nardog ( talk) 10:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
DeleteEntirely unsourced and without context or indications to a degree of comprehensiveness or meaning. Looking at this some words, this how was this is can be created here. It's also a mess of poor sourcing and bunch of trivial collections, as the same fate of the same three AFDs which are also deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiction set in the 21st century, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of counties of the United States, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the shortest rivers). CPORfan ( talk) 10:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - seems to me to be self-evidently notable in that there are good sources which discuss the topic in depth. Some that don't appear that be in the page include 1 and 2 and 3. JMWt ( talk) 13:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It is now have sources, we don't delete that, and it is very useful in this one. The article fulfils WP:NOTABLE, which all of them is good for me. This is one of the most famous articles that I edit, and this is not to be familiar to me. Might also be better to redirect to English adverbs. CPORfan ( talk) 13:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- You can't nom, then !vote delete, keep and redirect. Which is it?
JMWt (
talk) 14:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I select redirect to
English adverbs.
CPORfan (
talk) 08:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Then strike your delete vote above and also this one. I also suggest you read about the alternatives to deletion. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- I select redirect to
English adverbs.
CPORfan (
talk) 08:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- You can't nom, then !vote delete, keep and redirect. Which is it?
JMWt (
talk) 14:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as the article now has sources and notability is clearly established per WP:GNG. Additional sources found by JMWt look good and should be added. The article is long enough that it should be divided up into sections, but all of these fixes can be made in the normal course of editing. Having now read English adverbs, I think there could be more tie-in between the two pages, but the focus there is quite different (higher level analysis of the concept and lexical category, etc., vs. the lower level/usage-specific detail of this page), plus there are many elements of -ly that don't strictly fit into adverbs, so I would keep them separate. (May be worth considering renaming this article to "Suffix -ly" or something to make it easier to find, but again, that discussion can take place outside of AfD.) Cielquiparle ( talk) 06:26, 5 December 2022 (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.
- 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 keep. This is one of the weirder nominations (SNOW??) that I've seen. CPORfan, perhaps it would be better for you to direct your efforts to the Indonesian wiki, as it seems that your mastery of English is perhaps not sufficient to contribute here effectively. Randykitty ( talk) 11:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
-ly
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- -ly ( | 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)
Delete due to WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The content is entirely unsourced and delete per WP:SNOW. CPORfan ( talk) 09:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Language. CPORfan ( talk) 09:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to English adverbs. The history and usage of the suffix are of encyclopedic interest and it's possible that WP:WORDISSUBJECT applies, but given the poor sourcing we might as well redirect it. If the fact it can be used to form adjectives too is a problem, redirect it to Suffix, where -ness etc. lead. (I'm at a complete loss as to how WP:SNOW is relevant here.) Nardog ( talk) 10:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
DeleteEntirely unsourced and without context or indications to a degree of comprehensiveness or meaning. Looking at this some words, this how was this is can be created here. It's also a mess of poor sourcing and bunch of trivial collections, as the same fate of the same three AFDs which are also deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiction set in the 21st century, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of counties of the United States, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the shortest rivers). CPORfan ( talk) 10:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - seems to me to be self-evidently notable in that there are good sources which discuss the topic in depth. Some that don't appear that be in the page include 1 and 2 and 3. JMWt ( talk) 13:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It is now have sources, we don't delete that, and it is very useful in this one. The article fulfils WP:NOTABLE, which all of them is good for me. This is one of the most famous articles that I edit, and this is not to be familiar to me. Might also be better to redirect to English adverbs. CPORfan ( talk) 13:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- You can't nom, then !vote delete, keep and redirect. Which is it?
JMWt (
talk) 14:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I select redirect to
English adverbs.
CPORfan (
talk) 08:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Then strike your delete vote above and also this one. I also suggest you read about the alternatives to deletion. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- I select redirect to
English adverbs.
CPORfan (
talk) 08:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- You can't nom, then !vote delete, keep and redirect. Which is it?
JMWt (
talk) 14:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as the article now has sources and notability is clearly established per WP:GNG. Additional sources found by JMWt look good and should be added. The article is long enough that it should be divided up into sections, but all of these fixes can be made in the normal course of editing. Having now read English adverbs, I think there could be more tie-in between the two pages, but the focus there is quite different (higher level analysis of the concept and lexical category, etc., vs. the lower level/usage-specific detail of this page), plus there are many elements of -ly that don't strictly fit into adverbs, so I would keep them separate. (May be worth considering renaming this article to "Suffix -ly" or something to make it easier to find, but again, that discussion can take place outside of AfD.) Cielquiparle ( talk) 06:26, 5 December 2022 (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.