Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Either (2nd nomination)


 * 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   redirect to Either/Or (disambiguation). Mark Arsten (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Either
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

WP:NOTDIC. This article has been unsourced for a long time. As far as I can tell, it goes from one editor's WP:OR thesis to another's with no one ever adding any sources. I read the 2004 deletion discussion (resulting in keep) and thought another discussion after 8 years might be fruitful, as nothing seems to have changed (comments about "expanding" the article haven't produced any sourced results). Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think sourcing is a problem (it's all common knowledge that can be found in all sorts of dictionaries and grammar books), but I agree it's very little more than dictionary material. I would redirect it to the Either/Or (disambiguation) page, and perhaps add a couple more entries to that page so as to link people to the relevant grammar articles and wiktionary pages. Victor Yus (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect A very thorough dictionary entry without encyclopedic content. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Either/Or (disambiguation). My original thought here was to provide a somewhat more baroque disambiguation page, talking about the issues 'either' raises in logic and law.  Most of that is covered at that disambiguation page, which might actually profitably move here as a better title.  The pronunciation information probably fits into Wiktionary. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. No opinion on what we should do with it, but common English words are generally bluelinks around here; see how few redlinks there are in the hyper-overlinked introduction in this version of the Hyperlink article.  Keep it or redirect it or something like that, but don't convert it into a redlink.  Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should have articles on all common English words? That seems rather extreme, even for those who tend to ignore WP:NOTDIC. Also, if I ever saw "either" wikilinked in an article, I'd remove it per WP:OVERLINK. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The commenter seems clear that he'd be happy to redirect it (including presumably to a dab page as has been suggested). The point of "not redlinking" is not just to be able to create blue links (which with a word like "either" are unlikely to be necessary, although if you were describing the function of a foreign word in the grammar of that language by comparing it to the English word "either", then it would be helpful to link to an article that describes the relevant function of "either" in the grammar of English), but simply to ensure that if someone types "either" into the search box they arrive at some existent page that will help them to find whatever information they may be looking for under that search term (in Wikipedia grammar articles or other articles, or on Wiktionary). Victor Yus (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2012 (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.