Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/English Grammar 2

English Grammar 2
It looks like an encyclopedia article. A lot of red links, and all links in the book go to either English in Use subpages, or short lists of expressions. It's organized horribly and it doesn't seem to me like it could help anyone. Also, as far as I can tell, there is no reason for English Grammar "2". Mr. NMC (talk ) 21:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] Comment. There is a confusion because it is not decided what English grammars there should be. I think there should be grammars for 3 levels: A (beginners), B and C (highest), and English in Use is a level C grammar. There was only a level C grammar before, and I think this is why these who want to write a simpler grammar, don't know where to contribute. Tkorrovi (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] Comment. Unfortunately the only criterion I know to decide whether something qualifies to be a grammar, is that it must be in general complete. I don't know when something written about grammar qualifies to be a grammar, and when not. Tkorrovi (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete. Because no one has proposed any solution of what to do with that grammar, and because at least as it is, it doesn't fit to the English bookshelf, there is no reason to keep it. Also that action may motivate at least some editors to think what the structure of the English grammars and the English bookshelf should be. I use this opportunity to thank all these who made very good contributions to English in Use, I think with these the English in Use is already now a good and ready to publish English grammar, but unfortunately it is not yet clearly decided that it would be a grammar (as a separate book). Tkorrovi (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't really see a need for this book. There should certainly be many different books focusing on the English language (books for learners, a general book on grammar, specific books for Business English, etc.) but there doesn't seem a need for many solely grammar books.  I would hesitate to delete this though because it is very extensive and some material should be copied to the English in Use book.  My vote is not to delete for now because the material is useful and because there isn't an immediate need to delete this content.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 22:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The page sucks, but the information would be usable down the road. Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The best outcome for the page/content. It doesn't fit into what should be deleted and has useful content, content that is somewhat redundant but distinct to what already exists in another project. It would be easy to merge it into several other books even books covering the relationship of other languages to English. --Panic (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I merged the conversation pieces into English in Use/Conversation Pieces. The remaining content should be reevaluated. -- Adrignola talk contribs 17:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete This book was copied from the Wikipedia English Grammar article as of the 30th of November 2003. Little or no meaningful content has been added and the edit history is missing. If anyone wants this at some point, just ask for the current version of English Grammar to be imported. --Swift (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Having examined the evidence, agree with Swift. --Pi zero (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Taking a position. Since I merged out the meaningful content and it's now clear why the page looks like an encyclopedia article to the original nominator, there's no need to keep the root page.  The article at Wikipedia has certainly developed further than this book has and all this does is distract from English Grammar. -- Adrignola talk contribs 03:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)