Talk:Ouzhou Anquan Lishihui
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Tooironic in topic Deletion debate
Deletion debate[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
More 123abc dodginess. Both encyclopedic entries. Strong delete. ---> Tooironic 01:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Dunno, I've seen worse than this. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't the litmus test, "would we delete this entry were it in English?"--71.111.229.19 12:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)(user:达伟)
- Not that I know of. Is it? I mean, something can be idiomatic, as defined in the CFI, in one language and not in another, even a brand or entity name, and isn't such idiomaticity what we look for?—msh210℠ 17:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well I suppose they both need attributive use. But given A-cai isn't around much and Tooironic won't want to do it,unless 123abc cites it himself, it will get deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Encyclo entry. No point including it here, when there is already an entry on zh:w. I'd also delete it on the basis of it being toneless (I am belligerently against toneless entries). Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 19:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not that I know of. Is it? I mean, something can be idiomatic, as defined in the CFI, in one language and not in another, even a brand or entity name, and isn't such idiomaticity what we look for?—msh210℠ 17:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- A related English entry for your reference: UN Security Council
- Per vote on toneless pinyin, I will still delete this on the basis that it's an orphan (non-standard spelling of.. nothing) without a toned counterpart Ōuzhōu Ānquán Lĭshìhuì. Any toneless pinyin = anglicized Chinese to me. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 12:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't the litmus test, "would we delete this entry were it in English?"--71.111.229.19 12:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)(user:达伟)
- Deleted. ---> Tooironic 22:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)