Talk:截氣神功
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Eirikr tagged with rfd, I changed it to rfv and moved it here. Does this term get enough hits to avoid speedy deletion? --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Googling to exclude Wikimedia sites and mirrors shows 42 hits here. Adding "の" to search specifically for Japanese entries gets nine hits here, but all of them are actually Chinese sites showing Chinese usage, where someone just happened to use Japanese elsewhere on the page.
- I'm not that up on Chinese, and still a bit fuzzy on WT's criteria for inclusion, so I have no clear idea whether these 42 hits constitute enough to keep this entry (reworking it to be a Chinese term instead of Japanese, of course). -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Should I delete my post from WT:RFD#截氣神功, then? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Probably should remove it, yes, I can see why a user might think that Requests for deletion is the place to request any form of deletion. Anyway, what I actually meant was in practical terms, anything that's very unlikely to pass - no Google Book, Scholar, Group or News hits - is susceptible to get speedily deleted. It's not a 'policy' it's just that this page is so massive, that we need to spend our time trying to cite the borderline cases, ones which may be citable, but also which may not be citable. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Someone's obssessed with the w:Airbender. This is used only in the universe of this Japanese manga series along with firebending, waterbending and earthbending. Should be deleted as it obviously fails CFI. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Probably should remove it, yes, I can see why a user might think that Requests for deletion is the place to request any form of deletion. Anyway, what I actually meant was in practical terms, anything that's very unlikely to pass - no Google Book, Scholar, Group or News hits - is susceptible to get speedily deleted. It's not a 'policy' it's just that this page is so massive, that we need to spend our time trying to cite the borderline cases, ones which may be citable, but also which may not be citable. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Should I delete my post from WT:RFD#截氣神功, then? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- All the Chinese links in Google hits are related to 降世神通, or the Avatar. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 00:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's been over a month and no one has presented any compelling evidence of validity. Searching for google books:"截氣神功" still gets zero hits. Is anyone opposed to deleting the JA entry? James and any other sinophone editors, what is your take on the Mandarin entry? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
google books:"截氣神功", google scholar:"截氣神功", google groups:"截氣神功" -- triple bupkus for Japanese and Chinese both. Failed RFV.
Done, striking. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)