How to use in-sentence of “encyclopedic”:
+ Since almost all sorces are in Arabic, it is really difficult to determine if this person is notable, in an encyclopedic sense.
+ I do however also have another observation: This seems to be some kind of artistic programme, in what way is it encyclopedic? -I owuld thererfore opt for deletion, but go thorugh regular RfD, given that this article raises a number of issues.If kept, the article must be encyclopedic and simple enough for our average reader…
+ This list is not encyclopedic in any way.
+ Anyway, even thoughthe article is very neutral in tone, and might be a good start, I see very little encyclopedic notability.
+ An individual meme isn’t of encyclopedic notability.
Example sentences of “encyclopedic”:
+ I really cannot see encyclopedic relevance here.
+ I do however think that the article has little encyclopedic value.
+ Nevertheless, I don’t currently see how this person is notable, in an encyclopedic sense.
+ So: while this may be a bright student, I do not see any form of encyclopedic notability.
+ Two big issues: Encyclopedic notability, and a possible conflict of interest; possibly the article was created by the person described.
+ It’s not encyclopedic or even notable if it doesn’t exist! And to have pages for pre-release commercial products amounts to giving them free advertising.
+ I don’t think this article has much of an encyclopedic value anyway, it doesn’t exist in this form on enwiki.
+ Stanton, Shelby, “World War II Order of Battle: An Encyclopedic Reference to U.S.
+ Hence, articles should be fixed only as time permits, not in a frantic rush to reach encyclopedic “perfection”.
+ The exception to that is “Malaria”, which I think might need to be gone over to make sure that all the information is encyclopedic and remove/reword parts that are not That being said, I would say that the best articles on the list are “Alanis Morisette”, “Caffeine”, “Japanese Tea Ceremony”, and “Malaria”.
+ I really cannot see encyclopedic relevance here.
+ I do however think that the article has little encyclopedic value.
+ Basic encyclopedic content and style needs to be improved.
+ But an edit history that is clogged with experimental or “junk” edits may become confusing, and versions that fail to meet encyclopedic standards may in the long run have a negative effect, particularly if they are not marked with tags to indicate their temporary status.
+ In the past, there were several debates as of how to handle such users and most of them consumed time for unnecessary arguements when we could have been making encyclopedic articles and contributing furthur to make this wiki a better online encyclopedia.
+ It is an encyclopedic dictionary, written in Greek, with 30,000 entries.
+ So: no encyclopedic notability.
+ However, I dodn’t see much goround for encyclopedic notability.
+ I think it is unlikely we can provide encyclopedic content for this entry.
+ Not much content, and not encyclopedic at all.