Talk:maaan

RFD discussion: July 2018

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

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.

---

maaan

Also useless. DTLHS (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC) : I think this should also be snow-deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 22:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep per policy (WT:REPEATING). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for not remembering this policy. I didn't think something like this would have passed, and if I were around (and an experienced editor) back in early 2014 then I would probably have opposed. Regardless, letting policy speak, an unfortunate keep. (For others who don't think these should have entries; may I suggest bringing this up at WT:BP again? @Equinox @DTLHS) PseudoSkull (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete this and all similar, I think. Ƿidsiþ 11:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as per "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Repetitions" if and only if it is also verifiable, sending the entry to RFV if necessary. (To avoid unnecessary proliferation of such entries, I think there should be a discussion about whether the entries also need to be verifiable. I should think the answer should be "yes", since it makes no sense to aaallooow for uuunverifiiiable eeentriiieees just beeecause they technicaaaly paaass the above pooolicy.) — SGconlaw (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have added five cites to the entry. I generally agree that forms such as these should be scrupulously well-cited. bd2412 T 18:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Passed as it satisfies WT:CFI#Repetitions. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)