Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English grammars and grammarians

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. ✗plicit 01:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of English grammars and grammarians[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NLIST. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 00:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Literature, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to address the concerns regarding the deletion nomination of the "List of English Grammars and Grammarians" under the grounds of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NLIST. Here are several reasons why this article should be retained:

Educational and Historical Value: This list provides significant educational and historical insights into the development of English grammar and grammars. Each entry represents an essential piece of the historical evolution of the English language and its teaching. This makes the list a valuable resource for students, educators, and researchers.
Links to Biographical Articles: Many entries are linked to existing Wikipedia articles about notable grammarians, enhancing the list's value by providing context and further reading. These links show the list’s role in connecting and organizing information within Wikipedia, enriching users' learning experiences.
Support for Broader Articles: The list is linked from the "History of English Grammars" article, serving as a resource that supports broader discussions about the subject. This interconnection helps other articles to reference a centralized resource, maintaining focus and avoiding redundancy.
Consistency with Wikipedia’s Guidelines: While Wikipedia is not a directory, it values lists that provide educational content and context. This list offers a curated overview of significant works and authors in the field of English grammar, making it more than just a simple enumeration.
Potential for Expansion and Improvement: Rather than deletion, this list could be improved by adding secondary sources that discuss the impact and historical importance of the works and authors listed. Enhancements could include more detailed descriptions and historical contexts.

--Brett (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the list comes from here. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My concern is that the lead states This list comprises significant works and figures in the study of English grammar and rhetoric, ranging from early comprehensive guides to modern analytical texts. The authors listed have contributed foundational texts that have shaped teaching practices and linguistic understanding in English-speaking academies and beyond. However, there are no sources to support that any given entry is a significant work or figure, or that those listed are considered foundational texts, or that any given entry has "shaped teaching practices and linguistic understanding". The list contains non-neutral, unsourced, and unattributed commentary such as Not worth a pin, A miserable jumble, and This is a curious work, and remarkably well-written. Several entries are noted for plagiarism, so why are they included? Rather than being carefully curated, this appears to be a data dump of 18th and 19th century grammar books. Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The non-neutral, unsourced, and unattributed commentary derives from the original work from which the text is copied, The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (wikisource). IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a list copied indiscriminately from an antiquated book. Reproducing a public domain catalog could serve as a prime example for WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The absence of modern contextualization and the preponderance of entries lacking wikilinks causes it to fail WP:NLIST by not fulfilling "informational, naviation, or development purposes". Schazjmd (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schazjmd. The same issue has come up with a handful of redirects derived from titles and the index of the Catholic Encyclopedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.