Talk:bisóodi bitsįʼ

2016 deletion discussion

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.

---

bisóodi bitsįʼ

This is sort of a test case, out of curiosity on how we are to handle Navajo entries: is this SOP? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Just to hazard an opinion, the derived terms at bisóodi bitsįʼ, and the derived terms at bisóodi, both suggest to me that bisóodi bitsįʼ itself is potentially idiomatic enough to warrant an entry of its own. Past there, I've run into the “translation target” argument enough to suspect that this could apply here as well. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  "Translation target" only applies to English entries which may be unidiomatic but can host translations tables. The unidiomatic translations in those tables don't need entries, they can be linked like {{t|nv|[[bisóodi]] [[bitsįʼ]]}} or whatever. (I'm not expressing an opinion on whether or not bisóodi bitsįʼ should be kept, just that "translation target" doesn't apply to it.) - -sche (discuss) 19:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Weak keep since almost no one voiced their opinion in multiple months. It can't harm to have a Navajo term for "pork" even if the term might be sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• RFD kept as no consensus for deletion, around 3 months since the nomination. If more votes come soon, it can be reopened. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)