Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/archive

This is a record of completed deletion requests. Please put the most recent first. Questions or disputes over outcomes should be placed on the talk page.

2011

Category:Kashmir

Virtually empty category now that Kashmir-related vandlized articles have been deleted. No similar category exists on EN, despite they having considerably more entries. Also, categorized under "Countries" even though Kashmir, last I checked, ain't a country Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Done.--Brett (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

raptorial bird

Checking a few dictionaries, I don't see this term listed. I think this is more encyclopedic content than something in a dictionary. The two words are fine on their own, but I don't think the phrase is for a dictionary.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the request. explanation here.--Brett (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Porosrikatorota

Checking online and text dictionaries I cannot find anything to suggest this word exists in English.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Deleted It's a Bengali word, not in English... (I am bn-N). Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

kung fus

As far as I can tell, this is not an actual word in the English language. I checked two online and one print dictionary for the word.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is only kung fu. Delete. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard kung fu used in the plural - I always thought it was uncountable, like a lot of other sports are (there is rugby and table tennis, for instance, but not rugbys or table tennises). The en.wikt entry would confirm this. My vote is to delete (and don't forget to mark the singular entry as {{uncountable}}). Tempodivalse [talk] 03:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find it attested in sufficient numbers to justify its inclusion here. I've deleted it.--Brett (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

itinerod

As indicated on the talk page of the entry, I haven't found this word in any online dictionary, and there are only a few hits for it on Google, mostly on random forums - it appears that it's an obscure Internet meme that never took off. With no offence intended to the page's creator, I doubt its verifiability and usefulness and propose it be deleted. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The page has been speedy-deleted by user:Brett. I guess this can be closed now ... Tempodivalse [talk] 22:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

2010

Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress

I don't think we need a VIP page, it's too detailed and complex for our needs. We're a small wiki with very little vandalism, and the admin noticeboard or simple talk should be sufficient for reports. IMO this page isn't necessary and is just another page to maintain. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete completely unneeded here. Re-created in ~200 years when we've a need for this. -Barras (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Barras. Pmlineditor ∞ 05:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Nuked -Barras (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

chemical compound

This definition is not only complex but also a sum of parts. Chemical is an adjective and compound is a noun; therefore they should be two separate words with separate entries. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a line long! You can simplify it. Also, it is on enWikt, which in my mind, gives it notability here. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Definite keep - 'chemical compound' has its own meaning outside of the words 'chemical' and 'compound'. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Complexity is not a reason by itself to delete the whole entry - surely we can simplify it instead? Although they are indeed different words, when joined together create a whole new meaning, as Arbitrarily0 notes. That, and the fact that en.wikt has it, makes me think it's probably better to keep this. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• Result: Kept per no support for deletion in several weeks' time.

Mitt

Doesn't seem to be a very notable given name, but I'm not sure of our policy on this. Your thoughts? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of Mitt Romney Mitt is his first name. --72.73.84.124 (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep While not very common, it's an accepted English name nonetheless and I think it's worth keeping. I don't believe we have a policy on proper names though. Something to bring up at simple talk? Tempodivalse [talk] 17:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, if we don't have a policy, it's definitely something we could consider making. I couldn't find any policy on it myself (so I just nominated it for deletion because en.wiktionary didn't have an entry on it). That said, we certainly don't have to be en.wiktionary. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• See Wiktionary:Simple talk#Given names. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and nomination withdrawn - see Wiktionary:Simple talk#Given names. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

{{wotd}} and everything that links to it

This little project was abandoned 4+ years ago. I think it is high time we finally delete it and remove it from the pages it is on. Let's be honest--who can honestly say they care that foot was the word of the day March 13, 2006? If this project or a similar one (e.g. word of the week) were to ever get picked up again, we probably would not (read: we really shouldn't) clutter up our pages with a template stating when it was the word of the day/week because there is no point: no one cares and it's not interesting or relevant in any way. English Wiktionary certainly doesn't do it and I'm sure it's for this very reason. · Tygrrr... 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Not useful anymore. If we once reach 50 active editors and 100k entries it might be good to have, but this will akes years. -Barras (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - easily restored if need be at some point; currently not useful as Barras said. I can have User:Arbitrarily0Bot remove or substitute the transclusions if warranted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it might be better to remove it. Tygrrr is right, noone cares when an entry was word of the day. -Barras (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete what the weird German with editcountitis said ;) Griffinofwales (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. πr² (talk • changes) 23:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, it's not useful. If we could have a bot to remove the redlinks after the template is gone, that'd be great and save us time. Shouldn't be too hard to program, methinks. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Result: Delete - Can someone write a bot for the removal or shall I ask someone from WP with bot experience? -Barras (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Done - I took the liberty to go ahead and do this. It looked like there were too many variations (each transclusion had different parameters, in a different place, and with different "<br>"s) to make configuring a bot for this worthwhile. I did it by hand instead, but under User:Arbitrarily0Bot (see changes). Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I just deleted the template. -Barras (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler

I just stumbled on this. Seems like it was imported from en.wp since the history has a single edit from 2004. It's not linked anywhere. Since we're not in the business of providing plot summaries or spoilers, I suggest it be deleted. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Quickly delete as Wiktionary shouldn't even have plot summaries... πr² (talk • changes) 20:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - agreed, there shouldn't be any instances on Wiktionary of plot summaries (and it's probably not best to encourage their introduction with a template). Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Brett (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

stolichanaya

I believe that this word is outside of the scope of the Simple English Wiktionary and therefore, should be removed. Razorflame 21:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it's a Russian vodka, which IMO doesn't put in the scope of any dictionary. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete as outside Wiktionary's score, and if possible, move to Wikipedia and improve the article there. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Transwiki per above. I-20 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't in SEWT's scope, definitely. I'd support a transwiki to simple.wp if it meets their criteria for inclusion, and remove it from here. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Deleted - Wasn't needed to transfer to Wikipedia. Content would've been deleted there as well. -Barras ^talk 10:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

2009

Womens aid

• Delete: It doesn't belong here. It isn't exactly encyclopedic either, and it isn't SE. More of an argument in favor of aid to women. Plus, it was a one-off edit by an anon. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 22:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Result:Deleted as spam by User:Tygrrr. Cheers, Razorflame

protogalaxy

Hi there all. I would like to nominate protogalaxy for deletion for a few reasons. The first reason I think it should be deleted is because it isn't that easy of a word and probably, for lack of a better way of putting this, doesn't need to be included in the Simple English Wiktionary at this time. My second reason for requesting deletion of this is because it does not have a page on any other Wiktionary currently. While this alone isn't a good reason for deletion, it still has a bit of influence on whether or not I believe that this article should be deleted or not. What do you all think about this? Cheers, Razorflame 01:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• None of the reasons given are good ones. Simple Wiktionary aims at explaining words in an easily understandable way for non-native speakers, even words that are quite scientific or technical like this one. Furthermore, this word is not particularly difficult to explain. Nebogipfel 08:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Fair enough. If you think that it is an alright word, then I think it is an alright word as well. Consider this request for deletion withdrawn. Cheers, Razorflame 14:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

2008

Category:Old words

"Old words" is extremely vague for a category. Exactly what merits a word to be "old"? -- TBC 07:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think we could maybe include this category on {{obsolete}}. It's probably what it was originally intended for. I agree with you that "Old words" is not really a good choice for the Cat title though. I would suggest a rename to something more specific and more accurate, perhaps something like "Words with obsolete meanings" (not totally simple) or "Words with meanings that are no longer used" (a little wordy). I can see the purpose of a category like this, I just don't think it's accurately named. · Tygrrr... 16:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• The way to rename cats includes deleting the old one, and I agree, this one might as well go. - tholly ^--Talk-- 16:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: Deleted. No pages were in this category, so it was quick deleted under the empty category clause for quick deletion. Razorflame 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Further result: Upon the creation of the new template, {{old context}}, this category has been recreated and populated. Razorflame 18:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

More accurately, upon adding the category to the template {{old}}, it has now been populated according to my original idea that the category is useful. It may still need to be renamed, but since there was no consensus to rename it remains "Category:Old words". · Tygrrr... 22:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

as different as daylight and dark‎

This "phrase" only gets 766 hits on Google [1]. I, for one, have never heard of it. (I've heard of opposites compared as being "like night and day" but never this.) Does this "phrase" really qualify as common enough to have its own page here? I would say no. · Tygrrr... 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I vote for deletion.--Brett 21:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: failed the Google test and I've never heard of it either. Let's add like night and day, though.  :) --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - There are only 650 hits now. Chenzw (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Result: deleted - · Tygrrr... 15:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple English - German

• Delete. This is interesting. I would normally delete this out of hand, but I thought I'd mention it here and see what you all think. It seems to me like the only place it would fit is as an appendix, but I think we want to stick with just English, no translations. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, I agree that it doesn't really have a place here in this project. - Tygartl1 ^-talk- 19:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No place on this project--Barliner 19:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Result: deleted - Tygrrr ^-talk- 14:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

2007

Editing Wiktionary:BNC spoken freq 01

Deleted by Brett 01:14, 4 January 2007 (the person who made it). --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC))
This page is improperly named and duplicated with Wiktionary:BNC spoken freq 01, both created by the same user Brett on 14 August 2006.--Jusjih 15:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

2006

pervious

Deleted. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 04:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC))

Typing error, requested by creator. Kappa 22:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)