Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E.g. vs. i.e.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Content already merged to List of Latin phrases (A–E).--Kubigula (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E.g. vs. i.e.

E.g. vs. i.e. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. There are no sources, and this article seems to constitute unpublished synthesis of material - it doesn't seem like an actual encyclopedic topic. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete not encyclopedic to compare these two. Have an article on each, by all means, and mention the confusion there if there are sources and it is a problem (was for me, once). Lundse 15:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, i.e. get rid of it. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Clarityfiend 17:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cf. List of Latin abbreviations; Q.E.D. --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • DELETE Original research. Agree with Lundse.OfficeGirl 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Although a lot of people need to read this article, delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. shoy 19:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite. Or merge with List of Latin abbreviations. — Omegatron 01:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article contains no erroneous information and is a helpful resource clarifying a commonly misunderstood disparity. Who is victimized by it's being here? More good is done by allowing it to exist (which benefits all readers of Wikipedia) than by deleting it (which benefits at most the 3 or 4 tight-ass wikipedia Nazis who removed it, who can somehow look themselves in the mirror and HONESTLY BELIEVE that deleting this article for the sole purpose of "playing by the rules" is actually MORE important than allowing a perfectly valid (and greatly needed) nugget of information to reach millions of confused readers. Anyone who feels that way has no place editing an online information resource to begin with, and should further consider getting a life, a job, and removing the nub of carrot that's plugged up in their sphinky-hole. --Dick Rutherfords
    • Comment Noone is "hurt" by this being here. But it just does not belong in an encyclopedia. This is a howto, a manual, a textbook excerpt, whatever you want to call it. Should this be on the web, easily accesible for all who need it - yes. Does this mean it should necesarrily be on wikipedia - no. We can't have anything here, so we need to have some rules regarding inclusion - for now, this means non-encyclopedic content is out. Your personal attacks on those who do not share your opinion almost had me convinced, though... :-) Lundse 06:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks, I was especially proud of my ability to use the terms "Nazi" and "sphinky-hole" in the same blurb. I was also proud of the fact that I sauced my drawers at the '92 Emmys and had to clumsily excuse myself and do the "crab sidestep" all the way to the men's restroom in the middle of Michael Richards' acceptance speech. Were it not for the fact that I always carry a spare pair of briefs in my purse, I'd have been up shnyte crick that night. Shnyte crick for real, my brothers. -D. Rutherfalds
  • Keepthe article is quite useful I see no reason for deletion--Shimonnyman 06:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as a footnote to List of Latin abbreviations. JIP | Talk 08:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well said Lundse. Actualy, I think JIP's suggestion is possibly the best now at this point if anyone wishes to do that.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. And I agree that this would be a good compromise. Lundse 08:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per JIP et al. Bearian 01:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. I think it's useful for a Manual of Style or a grammar guideline, but not its own page. 24.177.128.131 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepVery useful for a lot of people.Tatoeba 23:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per JIP. HOWTOs should be moved to wikibook. Carlosguitar 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per JIP. A comparison between two often-confused expressions isn't really encyclopaedic, but the note on how they are often confused can be added has already been added to List of Latin phrases (A–E). Melsaran (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per JIP. This is useful information, no need to delete completely. 167.206.53.130 13:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete. The page contains no information beyond "e.g. means for example and i.e. means that is", which is obvious; and the bit about comma usage, which is unsourced, but it would be worthwhile to find a source and add it to the existing article on Latin abbreviations per JIP. --Quuxplusone 06:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it should be kept. It is of some value. PJD 15 September 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.164.0 (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This belongs in a style guide, not an encyclopedia. No redirect necessary, as no one would ever search for this term. --barneca (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. For all the reasons listed above. Just make a note under the entries for i.e. and e.g. in the List of common Latin phrases article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.185.163 (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Its a lesson, not an article. Mbisanz 01:23, 20 September 2007 (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.