Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Present simple continuous
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
- 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. Courcelles 03:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Present simple continuous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The title of this page on English grammar, "Present simple continuous", is an oxymoron. In English the simple present is not continuous, and the continuous present is not simple (is not constructed as a single word).
The title phrase appears nowhere in the article.
The content of the article is already covered much better in Continuous and progressive aspects#English, in English verbs#Progressive constructions, and in English verbs#Simple present. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The page was originally a redirect to Continuous and progressive aspects, but since the title is meaningless, delete. TimBentley (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per NOTHOWTO, plus the factual problems and duplicated effort described by Duoduoduo. Cnilep (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nibberish-gibberish. Clear lack of knowledge of linguistics, and Wikipedia prides itself on being factually accurate. Linguogeek (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The title is simply not the name of any subject. A redirect from this title seems pointless. And the content is downright wrong, let alone unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2011 (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.