Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of adjectives ending with 'ly'


 * 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. ...the merits of Wiktionary aside... Courcelles (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

List of adjectives ending with 'ly'

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I'm not sure what to cite in this case, but I'm not sure that a list of words is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If any other editor with more experience comes along, please weigh in as this is the reason I listed the article on Afd in the first place.  elektrik SHOOS  04:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the article could be more appropriate in Wiktionary or another sister project. Mimosa.cb (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. Reyk  YO!  05:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Exactly like Reyk says. It's a directory type listing. Not encyclopedic. Shadowjams (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ORLY?  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's an adjective meaning "like a French airport", as in "man, that bidet in the restroom is so Orly!. Mandsford 13:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just an arbitrary list, with no real encyclopedic justification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - though it may need to be converted from a list into a short article. I believe that this article could be useful to a Wikipedia audience. The article is not better suited to any other Wikimedia project. The information in this article would not be reached more conveniently by placing it elsewhere. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per SALAT. While they may be a source of confusion sometimes, as most "-ly" words are adverbs, it really isn't notable enough a topic for an article. Tarc (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for all of these reasons. Note also that -ly is a still productive part of English word formation; a day or so ago I saw a drummer being described as "Stoogely", and I knew what it meant without looking.  Even if we had a place for lists of words like this, this isn't a closed class at all. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment For the record, they were daily, early, elderly, friendly, lovely, likely, portly, and spindly. My first thought would have been "sly".  My understanding is that this type of list was encouraged back in Wikipedia's early days, with the vision apparently being that multiple editors would add their knowledge to build a people's encyclopedia of some sort.  It's a beautiful philosophy, but it's always been inconsistent with the basic concept of no original research.  Wikipedia became so successful that it (wisely) opted to enforce the OR policy.  Someday, Jimbo and the gang might try to recreate that original vision of a "free love" free encyclopedia. Mandsford 13:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment isn't this something that should be on Wiktionary? 76.66.192.55 (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see where they would put the information. Although I've never ever met anyone has ever actually used Wiktionary, my understanding is that you type in a word and it gives you a definition.  Mandsford 12:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They have "Appendices", see wikt:Appendix:Contents. I use Wiktionary occasionally, it's not much fun to edit though. If you thought Wikipedians were pedantic and unwelcoming... Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very frustrating to edit, they ban you for no reason, for 24 hours as a default penalty, and think they know everything (apparently, there is no WP:IDONTKNOWIT policy, or any policy at all), never leave an explanation of why you were banned, if you ask on IRC, the other admins don't know why any other admin ever banned you, if you ask on their version of village pump, they say it is a mistake, but decline to say why they banned you in the first place. If it's not British English, it tends to get deleted. If it's an obscure technical term or slang term they leave an edit summary of "tosh" delete the entry, and ban you. If you convince the admin who banned you, it is valid, another admin comes along and deletes it, and then bans you again, even though you weren't the one who restored the deleted entry. It's just ripe for someone to sue them for libel. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like "Wiktionarrogant" would be a good word. Mandsford 14:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete To quote Tom Lehrer, "Immediately. Immediately. Immediate - L - Y." --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2010 (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.