This word does not exist in spanish. The noun of "registrar" is "registro" not "registración".
- Based on faulty logic, http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=registrac%F3n says "La palabra registración no está en el Diccionario." It doesn't say it's not a word. Dictionaries say what are words, they don't say what aren't. Anyway, there are LOTS and LOTS of uses of this in real books; gets "Aproximadamente 60.800 resultados (0,27 segundos)", and the plual gets 20k hits. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.
This isn't a word. Even Google Translate won't give you "registración" as a Spanish alternative to "registration." Just one of many Spanglish entries out there. The Royal Spanish Academy does not recognize this as a word. ESanchez013 (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- The Royal Spanish Academy is not part of WT:CFI. If it is an actual word that has seen use, then we will record it as such.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Just because it originated in Spanglish it doesn't mean it's not a word. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep but maybe mark as "U.S." or "nonstandard" or something. Do we even have a tag for U.S. Spanish? —Angr 19:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The term meets WT:CFI, in particular WT:ATTEST, yet WT:ATTEST would be questioned in WT:RFV anyway. No reason for deletion relating to WT:CFI has been given by the nominator. The nominator wants the entry deleted on prescriptivist grounds, while Wiktionary is a descriptivist dictionary. On WT:ATTEST anyway: shows 828 hits; for comparison, see also the stated synonym with its 1,035 hits. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Kept, perfectly valid word in Wiktionary. The RAE rules have nothing to do with ours. --Cova (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, way to make me feel welcome. Immediately tagged "bad nomination", "oh, screw you, because we're descriptivists, so take your arguments elsewhere" feelings written all over this nomination. I'm sorry if I upset y'all's perfect little world. I'll just stick to Wikipedia. ESanchez013 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand; you expect us not to tag something a bad nomination that is a bad nomination to make you feel welcome? We are descriptivists, so yes, you need to use different arguments. This is not terribly different from Wikipedia; try to delete w:Abortion and see how far you get and how nicely you're treated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, I don't understand what made it a bad nomination. But in any case, "abortion" is an actual process and word. Over there, we also have rules on articles that aren't about real things. Again, sorry if I disturbed you. Peace. ESanchez013 (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- We have rules; they're defined in WT:CFI. We describe the language as it is used, not how Royal Spanish Academy wants it to be used. For our purposes, a word is a word if someone is actually using it to communicate, whether or not any "official" body has declared it to be a real word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)