Talk:maaan
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Sgconlaw in topic RFD discussion: July 2018
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
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.
Also useless. DTLHS (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
: I think this should also be snow-deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Equinox ◑ 22:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per policy (WT:REPEATING). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Apologies for not remembering this policy. I didn't think something like this would have passed, and if I were around (and an experienced editor) back in early 2014 then I would probably have opposed. Regardless, letting policy speak, an unfortunate keep. (For others who don't think these should have entries; may I suggest bringing this up at WT:BP again? @Equinox @DTLHS) PseudoSkull (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete this and all similar, I think. Ƿidsiþ 11:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as per "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Repetitions" if and only if it is also verifiable, sending the entry to RFV if necessary. (To avoid unnecessary proliferation of such entries, I think there should be a discussion about whether the entries also need to be verifiable. I should think the answer should be "yes", since it makes no sense to aaallooow for uuunverifiiiable eeentriiieees just beeecause they technicaaaly paaass the above pooolicy.) — SGconlaw (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have added five cites to the entry. I generally agree that forms such as these should be scrupulously well-cited. bd2412 T 18:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Passed as it satisfies WT:CFI#Repetitions. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have added five cites to the entry. I generally agree that forms such as these should be scrupulously well-cited. bd2412 T 18:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)