Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaandu (2nd nomination)

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. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaandu

Waffling discussion of an Hindi insult. I have heard this word used in English sentences. It is already listed in this list in Wiktionary but it has no place in Wikipedia. -- Sgroupace (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not a dictionary. It's a dictionary definition, plus some aimless rambling pretending to be OR, which isn't allowed anyway. J L G 4 1 0 4 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A long-winded definition of a Hindi word, with no references. Belongs in Wiktionary, not here. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:NOTDICDEF. Already in wiktionaryDdawkins73 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per NOT.ThuranX (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keepkeep.
So the wiktionary and wikipedia are two mutually exclusive and exhaustive sets?

Wiktionary does not entail a meaning of more than a few words, being a kind of dictionary, whereas wikipedia has been built for detailed and exhaustive article on various topics built much on the line of an encyclopaedia. If one were to compare the Oxford dictionary(taken as a model here) and the encyclopaedia Britannica, one would find many words in common. Thus those who support deletion on this account are nothing more than the subject of this article and they can go find a definitive meaning of the word where they would and happily store it in their ‘grand’. Movie.copy (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wiktionary does not entail a meaning of more than a few words, being a kind of dictionary, whereas wikipedia has been built for detailed and exhaustive article on various topics built much on the line of an encyclopaedia."

That's just one possible (and, ultimately, superficial) difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. The article in question, besides being nearly incomprehensible in large portions, offers nothing that would suggest notability, verifiability, or significance. That's what counts. J L G 4 1 0 4 14:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia doesn't duplicate concepts. Insult Ddawkins73 (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2009 (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.