Talk:Shenzhen

Deletion debate

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.

---

Failed RFV. —Ruakh_TALK 11:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Don't forget to delete San Diego and the United States of America while you are at it. Polarpanda 11:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Definitely keep. A large well-known place with some linguistic information and translations, etymology and citations. --Anatoli 13:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - all words in all languages. SemperBlotto 15:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

    Keep. --Yair rand 17:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a vote going on: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-03/Placenames with linguistic information are accepted. Leave this issue open until that vote ends, and then delete unless both (a) that vote passes and (b) this entry satisfies that new criterion.​—msh210℠ 18:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:United_States_of_America and many other Wiktionary:Unresolved_issues/Place_names. We shouldn't have double standard policy on deletions. --Anatoli 00:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah keep this, or at least be consistent. Do we intend to just pick and chose which entries that fail RFV we keep, and that we don't? See Polarpanda's comments above. Re Ruakh, nice move to move this here instead of deleting off the bat. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Let us stop invoking the illegitimate attributive-use rule. --Dan Polansky 09:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Kept already. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 10:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy change that allows this definition. Asserting that a long-standing practice is illegitimate does not make it so. That many folks have an inchoate desire to make us into a something WMF never intended and duplicative of WP does not automatically make it a good thing. Stated reasons for inclusion involve appeals to the slogan and notability, which has long been appropriately treated as irrelevant in a linguistic reference. Most of the stated "keeps" have simply argued from consistency, which can and should be achieved by a program of RfVs for the numerous. DCDuring TALK 10:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a policy change, this passes under line 1 "all words in all languages". The fact that several other policies contradict this doesn't help much. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for verification

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.

---

Tagged by User:DCDuring. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the Request to Verify about? It is what it says it is... and it is a widely talked about city outside of China 76.66.197.2 11:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's the fact that it's a place name. It belongs to Wikipedia. Just maybe. Jamesjiao 03:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. (Our criteria for inclusion currently require attributive use for placenames.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Restored - attributive use was never voted on. Seems like a reasonable entry. Keep SemperBlotto 11:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry re-deleted: after a few weeks, still no citations, attributive or otherwise, have been added to the entry or its citations page. —Ruakh_TALK 01:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Entry restored. --Anatoli 10:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 11:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)