Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianpa


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Dianpa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article seems to be an unreferenced attempt to define a word from a non-English language. Fails WP:NAD and probably a few other policies. - MrX 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm voting delete because, although I'm not fluent with this language, it seems to be a basic dictionary definition. Unsurprisingly, a Google Books search provides nothing relevant. If any Chinese users determine this is a significant and notable word, I'm willing to change my vote. SwisterTwister   talk  21:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yes, I came across this article once could not fathom the objective behind creation so refrained from taking it to AfD. Now that it's been taken to AfD, I think it's better that we delete this article. Even the article creator mentioned in edit summary that it's about a "slang" (as opposed to a whole language). Wikipedia is not a collection of slang, jargon or their usage guide. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to Wiktionary. It's a word. I cleaned it up some, but it's still a definition of a regional word. -- Auric 18:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Without demonstrated coverage outside of purely linguistic sources (as with, say "grass mud horse"), fails per WP:NOTDICT. Also, the lack of Chinese characters makes it unworthy of an entry even in Wiktionary. GotR Talk 21:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.