Basically, most or if not all these are Chinglish and/or sum of parts. All are incorrectly formatted. And, no, Googling is not an adequate way to see if they are attested as that will only tell you how prevalent Chinglish is on the Internet. Adding entries for even the most common Mandarin vocabulary on Wiktionary is a huge task, but if we are supposed to add almost any possible combination of English and Mandarin this magnifies it beyond belief.
The way I see it, User:123abc should probably be banned, as even after multiple communications with the user by myself and other contributors, s/he continues to add these useless and messy entries. This creates a huge amount of clean-up work for myself and the bare four or five other Mandarin contributors here. Tooironic 05:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't speak the language, but Alzheimer病 cannot be sum of part. So, it must be what you call Chinglish (but the definition in Chinglish does not cover this sense)? If these words are used in Chinese texts (and they clearly are, even in books), why should they be deleted? My feeling is that you don't like them, but it's an opinion, and we must keep neutral. Usual criteria should apply. Lmaltier 06:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
And what criteria are you using? I implore you to find just one dictionary that translates Alzheimer's disease as Alzheimer病. And where are these books you speak of? You'll also find plenty of Google hits for "Chairman毛", "Bei京" and "kung夫" but that doesn't make them words. Tooironic 10:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The criteria don't include the presence in another dictionary, the important thing is that words have to be used. I don't know about the other examples you give, but Alzheimer病 is used, even in books (you can find many examples in Google books), and its only possible use is as a word meaning Alzheimer's disease. Lmaltier 12:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted the three least attestable ones. 牛肉pie only gets about 150 Google hits, so that's also likely to fail. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Why your Google hits are different to my Google hits? My Google hits are 352. (123abc 02:22, Feb 7, 2010)
Being rare is not a reason to be deleted. 150 hits is not a proof, but a serious clue that the word does exist. Lmaltier 23:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Except... they're not Chinese words. They're Chinglish. Tooironic 01:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the standard is that if a word is regularly used in Chinese context, it's a Chinese word. (Look at WT:RFD#Ivrit.) --Yair rand 02:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is the only possible criterion for creating a section for some language (try to find a better one!) Lmaltier 08:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
What is Chinglish? Are theyChinglish books? (123abc 01:57, Feb 7, 2010)
Then I stand corrected for Email地址E-mail地址e-mail地址. Good to see some evidence actually coming forward. How about the rest of them? Tooironic 09:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I've said on RFD. This isn't vandalism, if they are used, people may search for them, therefore we should keep them. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Words with English abbreviations are legitimate (CD-+...), the rest are Chinglish. Although, they are used and can be found in Google, standard Mandarin doesn't work that way. Words with mixed scripts, where English names are spelled using Roman letters are often used by people who don't know how to write those names in standard Chinese, especially overseas born Chinese like "Alzheimer病". Google will give a lot of hits but it doesn't mean that it is a correct spelling.
Chinglish: Alzheimer病 (this should be avoided as a dictionary entry). delete
Those of these terms that are unidiomatic (SOP), ought to be deleted (obv.), whilst those that are not ought to be kept iff 123abc or whoever can find the requisite three citations spanning at least a year in durably-archived media each. We should be strict about the time allowed for verification (i.e., they should only remain here without attestation until the 6th of March, at the latest). Those that are verified per the CFI ought to be reformatted thus:
unless some convincing evidence can be provided for why they ought to be regarded as standard. †﴾(u):Raifʻhār(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the idiomatic ones should be kept if there are three citations, that if used in Chinese they're Chinese. I also think that RFVing a bunch of entries without checking for citations, or which the nominator knows there are citations, and hoping no one does the work to cite them, is acting in bad faith. I'm tempted to say "keep all" for that reason, even if they are uncited, and though this is not a vote page. I would cite them myself, but don't know enough Chinese (I known none, actually) to know when they are being used and when mentioned, etc.—msh210℠ 17:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
To decide on this, people should know how Chinese works and what is acceptable and what is not in standard Mandarin. You may find a lot of citation of English words in Roman letters within Chinese text, these words don't become Chinese. In Einstein相对论, only 相对论 is Chinese, Einstein is not. --Anatoli 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
A number of these entries have been deleted already, mostly pursuant to RFD discussions. Those that haven't, are hereby kept. If there are any specific ones that you think are not attestable, feel free to RFV them individually; but some of these get hundreds of b.g.c. hits, and overall it looks like these should have been RFD'd rather than RFV'd. —RuakhTALK 15:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Central archive of RFD/RFV/RFC discussion of this and related terms
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. 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. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
As above, I have searched for examples and found multiple examples of Alps山 (thus, it seems to meet CFI, rightly kept), but I have found no examples of alpha射线. — Beobach 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 18:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)