Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English suffixes


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

List of English suffixes

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

See the analogous Articles for deletion/List of English prefixes, deleted earlier. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This articl is only about word meaning and usage, with no encyclopedic context. We are in the process of moving these word lists to Wiktionary, and this one has been transwikied and is ready to be deleted now. It is merged into wikt:Appendix:Suffixes:English. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - If there is nothing that isn't duplicated (of equal or better quality) at Wiktionary, then definitely delete per nom (WP:NOT). Black Falcon 08:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WINAD and standard procedure after transwiki. Walton monarchist89 11:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Standard procedure after transwikification is for Wikipedia to decide what it wants to do with the article. It is not standard procedure to always delete what has been transwikified.  Uncle G 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 12:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WINAD; at least it's going somewhere. Trebor 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep We have many similar articles on language suffixes. Not enough reason to delete yet.--Sefringle 23:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you know of another article of similar type, feel free to nominate if for deletion as well. Surely you noticed that this is a wiki that is freely editable; I therefore fail to see why the fact that other like articles exist is an argument for this one to be kept (put simply: ought a piece of vanity somewhere on Wikipedia argue against all proposed deletions of such articles?). I don't think you've supplied a rationale for why the other similar articles, if they exist, are encyclopedic at all, only pointed out that they do exist. Dmcdevit·t 00:09, 6 February 2007 (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.