Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-graphy


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

-graphy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Transwiki to wiktionary: 100% dicdef. The list of "*graphy" words would correspond to wikt:Category:English words suffixed with -graphy - 7-bubёn >t 01:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that this article has been in Wikipedia for over six years. It's pretty well established by now. We also have -logy and -onym. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * there have been several dozen suffix articles. And even two templates to navigate anomg them. Most of them are gone, and for a reason. - 7-bubёn >t 17:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. At least the etymology of it is encyclopedic. The list could be cut, but I think it should stay because it has a navigational role. - Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Etymology is exactly what dictionaries are for. - 7-bubёn >t 17:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a quite likely search term and provides links to numerous other Wikipedia articles. The use of this type of suffix article is well established in Wikipedia and there are many similar articles. See Category:Greek suffixes and Category:Latin suffixes. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Etymology is for a dictionary. A list of -graphy's seems somewhat trivial to me. These two things combined do not make an encyclopedia article, in my mind. --Movingday29 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki or delete this is pure dicdef, and an encyclopedic article on a suffix cannot be built IMHO. At best this would be a disamb page, but even that would be very awkward. It's pure etymology.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:47, 17 February 2009 (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.