Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The elements of grammar


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The elements of grammar

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

Unencyclopedic, WP:OR, and there are already english grammar articles. Shadowjams (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, because the article is still under construction, although I don't believe it will be edited in a way that it becomes appropriate for Wikipedia. Victor Lopes (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep . Unless it overlaps with another article to the point where it is pointless to have both, it seems like this could potentially be a useful article. It is too early to say whether it will fulfil that potential. Lets give it a chance and see if it goes anywhere. If it doesn't it can always be deleted or merged later. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The under construction isn't a reason to keep, and as a practical matter in 5 days the article hasn't improved to something useful it should be removed anyway. This isn't a speedy, so the concern over deleting too early seems misplaced. Articles are evaluated as is, not on their future potential. Shadowjams (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - but the article was created yesterday. I know it is a recreation, but even if we consider this fact, the tag was added some hours ago only. In that case, the future potential of the article should be taken into account, because the overall quality of it may change quickly and considerably. Anyway, as you said, we don't need to be concerned about the aricle getting deleted too early, because AfD discussions can last for a few days. Victor Lopes (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern is that it could put the author off doing further work on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, the AfD tag in the article says "Feel free to edit the article", and the warning on his talk page says "you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns", so I guess there's nothing else we can do. Anyway, the author already said he's going to take a Wikibreak until February 16, because "everybody hates him for trying to be helpful". It probably means he will not edit the article, and now there's little (if any) chance of it to keep. Victor Lopes (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure how other editors feel, but I'm usually reluctant to edit an article that's subject of an AFD unless I'm very confident it will be kept. JulesH (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral but the editor should be pointed to the SYNTAX project; he might be a good fit there and enjoy helping out. ThuranX (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There's something fishy going on here, look at the author's talk page. §FreeRangeFrog
 * Yep, I said this at my comment last comment above. Not a nice solution for this issue, but it seems the article will stay as it is. Victor Lopes (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Consists only of wlinks with (in some cases incorrect) explanatory definitions. This topic is already covered at English grammar, and the article is therefore redundant. Deor (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Title doesn't fit content. English grammar covered (Duplicate). Nothing to merge that will help the other page. Ddawkins73 (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if English grammar didn't exist, this was going nowhere. "The elements of grammar" is simply too vague a term (nevermind the unwarranted definite article given that no language is specified), and it's handled here in the most pedestrian manner, like the author had a fifth-grade grammar book as the only reference. But, since we're having to decide whether the topic is notable the style, content, and promise of the article as such are irrelevant. Fortunately, while the topic of grammar is notable in many ways, "The elements of grammar" is not a viable topic. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. While not yet finished, the article appears to be treating the subject in substantially greater depth than the section dedicated to similar purposes in English grammar, which lacks any treatment of the difference between dependent and independent clauses (discussing only independent ones in section on clausal syntax) and hence not even touching upon the subject of run-on sentences and comma splices. I would suggest retitling the article to Elements of English syntax, and once it is approaching completion listing it as a "main article" for the appropriate section. JulesH (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have trouble seeing how this treats "the subject" with any greater depth than is already handled in English grammar, not to mention, what could be very reasonably covered by that subject. At best this material (which has been transformed since the original Afd) would best be incorporated into that subject. Shadowjams (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The "transformation" you refer to consists merely of copy/pastes of the leads of the corresponding WP articles, again showing the redundancy of this one. Deor (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with the article is the article. There is no such thing as "THE" elements of grammar, really, because there are different kinds of grammar (and I don't mean just grammar of different languages). The elements of TG, if such there be, are not the elements of the grammar of Sentence diagramming. The very fact that the article has no lead, or even a description of what "elements of grammar" means, is indicative. You could add a million more of these "elements" and still not get an article. Moreover, "comma splice" is not an ELEMENT of grammar--at best it's a rule of grammar, but really, it's a rule of grammarians; nothing in the English grammar as a grammatical system prohibits it, and in Dutch and other languages it simply doesn't exist. When the author writes, "It is generally considered to be a grammatical error," they are absolutely correct (if only because it is copied from Run-on sentence)--and that very statement puts the lie to the whole idea of the article. Besides, there is nothing to incorporate: the stuff comes from other articles, it's already there. (Comma splice here perhaps warranted because the second independent clause is so short.) Again, the problem is conceptual: "the elements of grammar" is an empty phrase. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment All those things I have listed are part of "The Elements of Grammar". I know for sure because I have an English class 3rd period at my high school. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes the article, at best, "The elements of a high school English grammar class, 3rd period." Drmies (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * English takes place in other periods and is not only in high school, smarty. I know what I'm talking about; don't push me. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your article offers no grammatical insight that goes past the high-school level. I'm sure you know what you're talking about, and so do I. Address the substantial issues before you start namecalling or threatening. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is currently in expansion, but it's not keep-worthy; and the name and concept just doesn't seem article worthy. I suggest we merge the article unto Euegene's userspace by turning it into a subpage. Elbutler (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing wrong with it per se, but is redundant to English grammar and the articles that it discusses. Black Kite 23:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant and poor-quality fork of English grammar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see "The Elements of Grammar" listed in that article... - Eugene Krabs (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because there is no such thing. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is too! What are you, stupid? - Eugene Krabs (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Verb phrases, noun phrases etc are elements of grammar. If you want more than that - Phrase structure rules. Nothing personal, but almost all of it is already covered elsewhere: Dependent clause.
 * Ddawkins73 (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
 * It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.


 * Delete: redundant (in that there are many articles already on grammar), poorly written & containing significant amount of probable-OR. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * delete content fork that is worse than the existing material it's forking from.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that this is an unneccesary content fork from another article. This particular article presupposes to discuss all elements of grammar, starting with phrases and sentences.  The presentation is so dull that it makes one want to say "ain't".  Mandsford (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant fork. The redirects to it also need to be deleted. Elements of grammar, for example. The other possibility would be redirects to English grammar.  Enigma msg  17:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to delete. My weak keep above was conditional on the article not being duplicative of existing articles. It is now clear that it is duplicative so I withdraw the weak keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant even if improved. Editors who wish to expand on the topic of English grammar should do so in the appropriate article. Bongo  matic  18:29, 9 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.