The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
WP:NOTDIRECTORY/ WP:NLIST. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 00:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This list comprises significant works and figures in the study of English grammar and rhetoric, ranging from early comprehensive guides to modern analytical texts. The authors listed have contributed foundational texts that have shaped teaching practices and linguistic understanding in English-speaking academies and beyond.However, there are no sources to support that any given entry is a significant work or figure, or that those listed are considered foundational texts, or that any given entry has "shaped teaching practices and linguistic understanding". The list contains non-neutral, unsourced, and unattributed commentary such as
Not worth a pin,
A miserable jumble, and
This is a curious work, and remarkably well-written. Several entries are noted for plagiarism, so why are they included? Rather than being carefully curated, this appears to be a data dump of 18th and 19th century grammar books. Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
non-neutral, unsourced, and unattributed commentaryderives from the original work from which the text is copied, The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown ( wikisource). IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
WP:NOTDIRECTORY/ WP:NLIST. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 00:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This list comprises significant works and figures in the study of English grammar and rhetoric, ranging from early comprehensive guides to modern analytical texts. The authors listed have contributed foundational texts that have shaped teaching practices and linguistic understanding in English-speaking academies and beyond.However, there are no sources to support that any given entry is a significant work or figure, or that those listed are considered foundational texts, or that any given entry has "shaped teaching practices and linguistic understanding". The list contains non-neutral, unsourced, and unattributed commentary such as
Not worth a pin,
A miserable jumble, and
This is a curious work, and remarkably well-written. Several entries are noted for plagiarism, so why are they included? Rather than being carefully curated, this appears to be a data dump of 18th and 19th century grammar books. Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
non-neutral, unsourced, and unattributed commentaryderives from the original work from which the text is copied, The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown ( wikisource). IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)