Talk:dung heap

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.

---

dung heap

Our definition, requiring that the heap be for agricultural use, is I think wrong, and this is SOP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete, it is a heap of dung. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Could pass on WT:COALMINE if more common than (deprecated template usage) dungheap. Equinox ◑ 12:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Technically CFI doesn't protect single word entries, they also have to be attested and idiomatic. There's nothing in CFI to prevert dungheap being deleted. Just, it's very very rare for someone to nominate a single word entry for deletion as sum of parts, see also User talk:Dan Polansky#faceguard. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep per WT:COALMINE. WT:COALMINE makes the implicit assumption that closed compounds ("headache", "dungheap") are kept per being written solid, without space. This implicit assumption has so far been heeded in common practice. I see no need to question the assumption that "headache" should be included in Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky 08:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

People tend to misinterpret COALMINE. They forget the 'significantly more common bit', not just attestability. So we need to crunch some numbers. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

kept. No idea how you would define "significantly more common", but thrice the amount of hits on b.g.c seems to do it for me. -- Liliana • 09:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)