Wiktionary - Recent changes [en]: Talk:qyamancha

Wiktionary - Recent changes [en] Track the most recent changes to the wiki in this feed.

Talk:qyamancha Sep 23rd 2011, 11:54 Deletion debate: new section ← Older revision Revision as of 11:54, 23 September 2011 Line 61: Line 61: ==Comment: other forms cited== ==Comment: other forms cited== I couldn't find any uses of this spelling, but I have just cited [[kyamancha]] and [[kamancha]]. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 04:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC) I couldn't find any uses of this spelling, but I have just cited [[kyamancha]] and [[kamancha]]. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 04:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)   +   + == Deletion debate ==   +   + {{rfd-failed|text=== <s>[[qyamancha]]</s> ==   +   + : ''Note: all referenced discussions have been archived to [[Talk:qyamancha]]. See there for background. —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)''   +   + I marked this '''RFV failed''' and pseudo-deleted accordingly (by moving it sans redirect to [[Citations:qyamancha]], and formatting it as a citations page), and no one objected in the RFV discussion itself, but {{user|Doremítzwr}} left a comment at my talk-page disagreeing, and I now see that he left a comment at {{user|Vahagn Petrosyan}}'s talk-page as well, and to judge by Vahagn's reply, Vahagn also disagrees with the pseudo-deletion.   +   + I think I acted correctly — the citations given don't seem to be "durably archived" to me, and I couldn't find any durably archived cites myself. (The only Google Books hit is a mention with attribution to Wikipedia; Google Groups turns up no Usenet hits; and Google Scholar and Google News Archive both turn up blanks.) However, Doremítzwr believes that the citations ''are'' durably archived, so I'd like input from third parties, if possible.   +   + (This may actually be better as a BP discussion, or as a new RFV discussion, but since (1) we're only discussing one entry at the moment and (2) the previous RFV discussion failed to garner comments, I thought I'd bring it here first.)   +   + —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)   + :Perhaps the problem is how can a one word title convey meaning? If there was a very famous painting called [[Wiktionary]], what definition would that justify for the word? [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 23:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)   +   + :: Well, I'm not sure about the album, but the paintings do depict the instrument. (If you follow the links in [[Citations:qyamancha]], you can see pictures of them.) That's not perfect — for example, none of the titles use an article, even though I'm almost positive that in a sentence one would say "a qyamancha" rather than simply "qyamancha" — but it's not the worst thing ever. —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 02:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)   +   + : '''Delete.''' I am not perfectly sure, but the reasoning that you have shown in RFV (see [[Talk:qyamancha]]) seems valid to me, so this word should be deleted as having failed RFV. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] 09:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)   +   + '''closed''', there doesn't seem to be any kind of consensus for restoring the entry -- [[User:Liliana-60|Liliana]] [[User talk:Liliana-60|•]] 04:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)}}

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions