Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentence element
- 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. Shimeru (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sentence element (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unsourced article, no evidence given to demonstrate that this is a term actually used in linguistics. I have never heard it before, except as a regular phrase (i.e., not a technical term). Prod was contested. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- delete: You'll see the words together from time to time, of course, just like you'll find "you'll find" together sometimes. But the article implies that this is a term of art beyond this, and that is misleading; it is very important that this article be deleted. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment All of this material is already covered in Category:Syntactic entities and Category:Parts of speech with individual articles for each part.--Savonneux (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I removed the prod because it sounded like something potentially article-worthy; I have no opinion on whether it actually is worthy or not. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to tentatively suggest a redirect to Clause, but since that page cites no references, I would not object to deletion if no better target can be found. Cnilep (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also, according to this article, "sentence elements" are not necessarily clauses. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think this is a bad idea. Redirects should not be surprising - if clause doesn't define "sentence element" (which afaik has no special definition anyway) then the redirect itself could be interpreted as a definition - a wrong definition in this case - and is confusing. Nobody likes getting redirected to pages where it is hard to tell why the redirect exists. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't mean to suggest that clause is a/the sentence element; rather, Clause lists the elements of a clause as subject, predicate, etc. That said, the objections raised by Rjanag and ErikHaugen are important ones. In particular, I wouldn't want the redirect to suggest that "clause" is equivalent to "sentence elements". Cnilep (talk) 14:31, 13 May 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.