Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English prefixes


 * 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 delete, transwikied to Wiktionary. --Keitei (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

List of English prefixes
This list comprises information on etymology, meaning and usage, and belongs better in a dictionary. I propose a transwiki merge into wiktionary:Appendix:Prefixes:English --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikitionary, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ter e nce Ong (T 13:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per above. MER-C 13:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - seems to be a good option. --HappyCamper 14:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment; in the interests of full disclosure, I should point out an earlier debate on a similar article, at Talk:List_of_English_suffixes, which did not produce a consensus. That debate did not seem to be knowledgable about the existence of wiktionary:Appendix:Prefixes:English --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I wonder, whether the difference between a "dictionary" and an "encyclopedia" exists simply because the primary medium used is paper? This might be a source of the ambiguity on how to deal with such situations. --HappyCamper 14:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't, and the difference is a simple one: It's the use-mention distinction. dog is a dictionary article about the word "dog".  dog is an encyclopaedia article about a species of animal denoted by that word.  Uncle G 16:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. HappyCamper, I think the distinction between "dictionary" and "encyclopedia" lies in how they are used, not in the medium. Although the distinction is a somewhat blurry one (people differ in their opinion on just where the line is to be drawn), there is a distinction, and people tend to turn to encyclopedia for certain things while they tend to turn to dictionaries for other things. It seems to me that most people would expect to find this list in a dictionary, not in an encyclopedia. Hence, transwiki. &mdash; mark &#9998; 15:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per Mark. / Peter Isotalo 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions.   -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per nom. Angr 18:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Leave It more information is better than less information. Zbrock 21:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although my vote is destined to fail, I find this non-offensive and informative, as well as encyclopedic. If this was an article on one prefix, I would probably agree with you; a centralized list is useful and doesn't create clutter, either. Dekimasu 14:50, 8 October 2006 (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.