Talk:子驥

RFD discussion: April–October 2016[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

~~劉麟之, 刘麟之; 劉子驥, 刘子骥; 子驥, 子驥~~

Delete 劉麟之 and 劉子驥; weak keep 子驥 since CFI seems to say that only names with family and given components cannot stay. —suzukaze (t・c) 09:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is Chinese - given names are random combinations. We will have > 50000 + 50000 ^ 2 + 50000 ^ 3 = 1.25 × 10¹⁴ Chinese given names if we decide to keep all. Wyang (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are really so many combinations attested in use? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[1]. Wyang (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above linked picture shows China population. In fact, it was obvious from the outset that the answer to my question is, no, there are not 10E14 attested Chinese names, and therefore, it is not true that we will have over 10E14 names if we decide to keep all attested person names. Furthermore, it is not all or nothing; the nominated entries are not names of some random people. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are person names. The applicable policy is WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 劉麟之, 刘麟之, 劉子驥, 刘子骥 per CFI, as they are combinations of a given name and a last name. - -sche (discuss) 15:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the four combinations: 劉麟之, 刘麟之; 劉子驥, and 刘子骥. The two given names are still to be discussed. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sigh-this+abuv=elpFULentryz(THAT=wotumakeDIC4!..81.11.219.175 17:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 子驥／子骥 as with all Chinese given names. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:子驥#RFD discussion: April–October 2016.