Talk:Wikidata
RFD discussion: October 2013–May 2014
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests 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.
—RuakhTALK 05:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete unless citations that prove it has entered the lexicon are added. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's unlikely that this could meet the relevant (WT:BRAND?) standard for attestation. I think it should be held here for the 30-day RfV period rather than be deleted more quickly. DCDuring TALK 13:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Any reason for that? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Because attestation, which is a defense here as Ungoliant points out, usually takes more time than getting a consensus on deletion. To make the lack of consensus on more rapid deletion clear: Keep unless not attested in a month. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say it's an unfair stay of execution. You already said you believe in due process, why not for this? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- If there is a possibility of attestation, why not? Why be such a deletionist? It'll probably go anyway. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say it's an unfair stay of execution. You already said you believe in due process, why not for this? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Because attestation, which is a defense here as Ungoliant points out, usually takes more time than getting a consensus on deletion. To make the lack of consensus on more rapid deletion clear: Keep unless not attested in a month. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Any reason for that? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's unlikely that this could meet the relevant (WT:BRAND?) standard for attestation. I think it should be held here for the 30-day RfV period rather than be deleted more quickly. DCDuring TALK 13:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, as no RFD-relevant reason was stated, and I cannot think of any. If WT:BRAND is the reason for deletion, this is for RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- RFV as appropriate. (Shouldn't we have RFV as a voting option instead of just "keep" and "delete"?) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Sent to RFV. Obviously this is a "word" but it is an RFV matter whether this is a word that meets WT:BRAND. bd2412 T 16:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
RFV discussion: May–July 2014
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
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.
Raised at RFD, but the real question is whether this can be attested to meet WT:BRAND. bd2412 T 16:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Either keep all WikiMedia foundation words or delete all of them except Wikipedia and related terms and Wiktionary and related terms because there are still translations that have not yet been blanked. See the difference between Wikimedia and Wikimédia. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's not what CFI says. Certainly Wikipedia has reached a place in culture few other words associated with Wikimedia have, and thus is more likely to meat WT:BRAND.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)