Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shompet

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 of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shompet

Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, slang, or idiom guide. --Hetar 09:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete post transwiki. --ΜιĿːtalk 09:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 12:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: If this is not a dictionary, so we shouldn't have anything about "Apple" or "tree" or "carrot" or ... . This is an information guide, about what does something mean and where it is used. Don't try to be effective!! This Article is great and it is common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad3d (talk • contribs)
~~Don't Delete~~: per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad3d (talk • contribs) Multiple "vote" from this user stricken per AfD etiquette.
Neutral, could be notable, would like to see an actual source before believing notability. Appears to be more than just a dicdef. —Cuivi é nen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:40 (UTC)
~~Don't Delete~~: Check the Encyclopedia's meaning in Wikipedia. You'll see: "The encyclopedia as we recognize it today developed from the dictionary in the 18th century.... an encyclopedia seeks to discuss each subject in more depth .... Some works titled "dictionaries" are actually more similar to encyclopedias, such as the Dictionary of the Middle Ages, the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, and Black's Law Dictionary ...". So as we see here, an Encyclopedia is an advanced dictionary. How you say "It is not a dictionary"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad3d (talk • contribs) Multiple "vote" from this user stricken per AfD etiquette.
- Delete. While you defending your own article is understandable, Ahmad, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary is official policy and nothing against which can be argued, however much any of us might not want that to be the case. The Apple article describes what one is, not merely defines it. There's nothing to be described for the Farsi word for "stupid." Delete as dicdef. RGTraynor 16:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If you need more examples of "There is something to be done with the farsi word Shompet, I'll give you some: Atom (is a word from Greek), Candy (is a farsi word), and ...
Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Esquizombi 13:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Don't Delete~~: Ofcourse it is not a dictionary, because it is something more than a dictionary! and dictionary is a subset of Wikipedia.... If it is something different, then Why, apple and Tree and ... can be found in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad3d (talk • contribs) Multiple "vote" from this user stricken per AfD etiquette.
- Comment If you look at the articles for apple and tree, they are quite obviously encyclopedic entries not dictionary ones. Esquizombi 14:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you look at the Wikipedia, you'll find out that it is a place that everyone can edit the entry. Why? Because everything need to be completed by everyone on the net. I'm sure apple and tree are not BORN like that, and they are abviousely created by someone and edited by others (exactly the same way that Shompet can be).
Delete. There's no potential for this to outgrow being a dicdef. Brian G. Crawford 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary/ dicdef. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef, and I've not seen any notability ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable, non-notable, 14 g-hits, those in English pertain to a eBay user name. Accurizer 21:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and place the famous little tag for sources needed. --72.57.8.158 22:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can say Wikipedia is not a dictionary because, well, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, translating, slang or otherwise. It's an encyclopedia. Comparison to other articles stated above is irrelevant, as those are not dictionary definitions. This article, meanwhile, has no plausible expandability. If someone can satisfactorily prove this wrong, I'll reconsider. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you look at the Wikipedia, you'll find out that it is a place that everyone can edit the entry. Why? Because everything need to be completed by everyone on the net. I'm sure apple and tree are not BORN like that, and they are abviousely created by someone and edited by others (exactly the same way that Shompet can be). —This unsigned comment was added by 194.225.24.3 (talk • contribs) .
- Look, you're nearing the root of the issue. We can complete the article on apple: It's biological properties, its mythological and cultural significance all the way to Isaac Newton and so on. But can we complete "Shompet" to same degree? No. "It means stupid. It was used in a TV program often." Well, write about the TV program. That may be significant, and we can probably discuss how that TV program is relevant, and how it made everyone cry that word. Take a look at Pulttibois, which does have an article: You find that we don't, and bloody hecking well won't, have an article about "apuva." It would never grow beyond "It means 'help'. It was used in a TV comedy show. Everyone in Finland mentally under 12 years of age repeated the hell out of it." Are you starting to see the issue now? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Imarek 00:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.