Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adverbial Clause

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep, but move to the proper capitalization Adverbial clause. (And create a redirect at Adverb clause as well.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adverbial Clause

Dictdef, move to wiktionary and delete. --W(t) 09:08, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

• Keep This isn't a dictdef.... It can have a full article like noun, however, it should be moved to Adverbial clause or maybe Adverb clause? Not sure of the proper name, but it surely can have a full article. (the evolution of clauses in language, etc.) But, for now it is not a very good article. gren 09:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• As per Grenavitar, Rename to Adverbial clause. Uncle G 15:17, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as suggested. It's very badly written, but even so it's more than a dicdef. Important grammatical constructs rate their own articles, even in a paper encyclopedia. ----Isaac R 19:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep, important concept in linguistics. Kappa 20:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Adverbial clause and cleanup. Create redirect from Adverb clause. --Tabor 20:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per Tabor. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as per Grenavitar. Notable grammatical concept. Capitalistroadster 23:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move per Tabor. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ··gracefool |☺ 23:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahem. How does a Move differ from a 'Rename'?Fabartus 05:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.