Talk:British Pharmaceutical Codex

RFD discussion: December 2018–February 2019

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

British Pharmaceutical Codex

Title of a specific book (and quite clear in meaning from its component words). Equinox ◑ 23:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete, not dictionary material. Per utramque cavernam 01:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete, not dictionary material. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The regulation is WT:NSE and allows editor discretion. "not dictionary material" is not a WT:CFI-relevant rationale. As for books, we have Bible, King James Bible, Book of Mormon, Octapla, Qur'an, Tao Te Ching,‎ I Ching, Torah,‎ Veda, Bhagavad Gita, Decameron, Little Red Book, Shahnameh, and Edda; and further dictionaries: AHD, OED, CCE, COD, DARE, DCHP, LDE, NOAD, and RHD. There is Category:en:Books. That said, not every book title should be included, and it is unclear what would recommend the multi-word semantically transparent title of British Pharmaceutical Codex. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. It's not as egregious as having an entry for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but it doesn't seem to be on the level of the Iliad or the Bible (which are clearly worth having, IMO); for one thing, the title is several words (which were combined together in English, unlike with the Bhagavad Gita where that name was borrowed/transliterated intact / as a unit). Re "OED" et al, initials of book names have somewhat more merit but are still a grey area, since any multi-word work name can be abbreviated. - -sche (discuss) 07:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)