Talk:absolutely not

Deletion discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

absolutely not

Given pretty much any adverb can be followed by not, this has to be covered as not. A few examples, definitely not, maybe not, certainly not, perhaps not. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Might belong in a phrasebook, if we were capable of having one. DCDuring TALK 12:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO delete, though there are in fact plenty of adverbs that don't fit well here (e.g. "thoroughly not"). However, that doesn't mean we should have entries for all valid combinations! Equinox ◑ 18:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I hypothesize that no manner adverb would work, but many modal and degree (esp. intensifier) adverbs would. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes sorry, quickly not doesn't work, you're right. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, definitely, emphatically, categorically not! Chuck Entz (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, erring on the side of. dictionary.cambridge.org: absolutely[1] has this, just like idioms.thefreedictionary.com[2]. We are cabaple of hosting a phrasebook. As for "pretty much any adverb can be followed by not", that is clearly incorrect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: BTW, why isn't "certain other dictionaries have it" a full-on CFI? Purplebackpack89 20:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Because some words other dictionaries have belong in Appendix:English dictionary-only terms rather than in mainspace. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Why would other dictionaries having something be a good thing? They have different criteria to us. This is not something to be ashamed of. Being different basically means we have some relevance, as opposed to simply a photocopy of other dictionaries. Oxford and Chambers don't have the exact same corpus and you don't see either of them trying to become the other. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Generally, so that a little less time is wasted in RFD, and so that we can broaden our view of what is useful beyond the imagination of whoever wrote the CFI. I for one would be only happy if the number of RFD nominations would drop to a third per month, especially by people who hardly ever help close or archive old RFDs. RFD is not for removal of wrong information, only for removal of information that some consider redundant, so its being a little more inclusive does not make Wiktionary incorrect. See also Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January#Proposal: Use Lemming principle to speed RfDs. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
        • My point stands, it may not make us less correct but it would make us less unique and therefore less relevant. I don't want our USP to be "we try to be like other dictionaries". Like I say, you don't see Oxford, Collins, Chambers (etc.) apologizing because they're not trying to be like other dictionaries. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - absolutely not useful. --Hekaheka (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - absolutely transparent. bd2412 T 17:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Not only can not be used with many intensifiers, but absolutely can intensify many negatives - "absolutely no", "absolutely no-one", "absolutely nothing", "absolutely never". If people wanted, we could have some sort of negative intensifying definition at absolutely (which would be equivalent the German gar) but I don't think that's necessary. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  The interesting thing, though, is that "not" cannot be used in this way without something preceding it. For example, "possibly not", "maybe not", "I think not", "if not", etc., but by itself, it is "no". --WikiTiki89 16:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  It can in the sense we label an interjection. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  But that's not the same sort of sense as in "absolutely not". --WikiTiki89 17:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep as translation target.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete (though I'd put this specifically in bold for anyone counting up the votes). Renard Migrant (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted; two-to-one in favor of deletion for being a combination of common meanings. bd2412 T 14:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)