Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KONIKA MEANING: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
d |
Maduwanwela (talk | contribs) del |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language|list of Language-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 15:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language|list of Language-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 15:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''Delete''' {{lang-sa|कङ्का}} (or IAST:kaṅkā, ITRANS:ka~NkA) does indeed mean "scent of a lotus" (source:Monier Williams), but that is just a small part of the article other than which everything is pure conjecture. We can include words if there's material beyond a dicdef for them, but in this case -- based on a search, it happens to be just another Sanskrit word, nothing more. As —[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman</font>]]'''[[User_talk:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#2B18BA">Spiff</font>]]''' 09:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' {{lang-sa|कङ्का}} (or IAST:kaṅkā, ITRANS:ka~NkA) does indeed mean "scent of a lotus" (source:Monier Williams), but that is just a small part of the article other than which everything is pure conjecture. We can include words if there's material beyond a dicdef for them, but in this case -- based on a search, it happens to be just another Sanskrit word, nothing more. As —[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman</font>]]'''[[User_talk:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#2B18BA">Spiff</font>]]''' 09:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' per [[WP:NAD]]. [[User:Maduwanwela|Maduwanwela]] ([[User talk:Maduwanwela|talk]]) 16:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:23, 24 June 2015
- KONIKA MEANING (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prod template removed. Adam9007 (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete This is an unreferenced and dubious dictionary definition. There is nothing worth saving in a brief stub which includes this absurd claim: "In ancient times the only language used worldwide was sanskrit." Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete WP:DICDEF with dubious unsourced claim. If not exclusively so, "Konika" is mostly associated in search with Konica, the company past of Konica Minolta (which I am proposing to create that redirect, in before whoever created a whole Wikia for this "KONICA MEANING" realizes that Konika is available). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete – We do have articles about given names (like Mary), so I could see having one about this one. But the etymology looks like OR, and I couldn't find any secondary sources that looked more promising. No indication what else would be in the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Sanskrit: कङ्का (or IAST:kaṅkā, ITRANS:ka~NkA) does indeed mean "scent of a lotus" (source:Monier Williams), but that is just a small part of the article other than which everything is pure conjecture. We can include words if there's material beyond a dicdef for them, but in this case -- based on a search, it happens to be just another Sanskrit word, nothing more. As —SpacemanSpiff 09:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NAD. Maduwanwela (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)