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, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
- Keep for idiomatic translations. —CodeCat 13:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Translation considerations are irrelevant. Why don't you try citing for a COALMINE justification? Or find a dictionary that includes it? DCDuring TALK 14:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I also believe that those entries are relevant, however our current CFI does not grant inclusion, unless COALMINE is met. What do you think about extending WT:COALMINE to allow terms with less common idiomatic synonyms? Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment if this is deleted, the translations should be moved to wolfling . Also there are a lot of Google book hits for "wolfcub" (even more for "Wolfcub") so it passes WT:COALMINE, if you like that kind of argument. Duologist (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep despite CFI, as a translation target for single-word non-compound non-English terms: Italian: lupacchiotto, Russian: волчонок, Slovak: vĺča. The translations could be alternatively hosted at wolfling, but wolf cub seems more common. Which leads to a tentative COALMINE-like criterion, pointed to by Matthias Buchmeier above: for an attested multi-word term that is a semantic sum of parts to be included, it suffices that it is significantly more common than its single-word synonym. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as a set phrase. Wolf child is wrong (unless you're talking about a human child raised by wolves); wolf pup is sometimes used but not as often and is not technically correct. bd2412 T 03:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, per bd2412. This phrase belongs to the vocabulary of the English language. My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it (it's spelled wolf-cub in my dictionary, but, very clearly, it's the same word). Lmaltier (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)