Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epanastrophe

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 redirect to anadiplosis. +An gr 10:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epanastrophe

Wikipedia is not a dictionary G W… 18:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to anadiplosis, if needed. Being that "It is more usually called anadiplosis" and all... Livitup (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE should be considered a violation of WP:CIVIL and against WP:CONSENSUS. A discussion among the people who happen to come here is inadequate. Use the talk page and give it an adequate period of time before deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser confirmed sock. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Biaswarrior's only contributions have been to vote Speedy Keep, failure to follow WP:Before, in a variety of AfD debates today, and a couple of PROD removals to boot. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anadiplosis, per Livitup's rationale. This will require mentioning the word at that page, so I guess this is a sort of merge. Cnilep (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, ~~but~~ to ~~Epanalepsis rather than~~ Anadiplosis. According to Richard A. Lanham's Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, epanastrophe is a synonym of epanalepsis, referring to the repetition at the end of a clause of the words with which the clause began. Anadiplosis, which refers to the repetition at the beginning of a clause of the words with which the preceding clause ended, denotes a different figure of speech. This article's definition of the term is incorrect. Deor (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure? 1, 2, and 3 agree with the article. Perhaps you looked up epanadiplosis in your book. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't know what the hell I was looking at, since Lanham doesn't even have an entry for epanastrophe. Opinion emended accordingly; fish applied forcefully to cheek. Deor (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2009 (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.