309:
if someone invented a algothrim, and he named it "x", the "x" has not used by others before, and some people know this algothrim as "x", but the author did not publish any paper with a publication with some authority, can "x" be acceptable to become a entry to introduce this algothrim?
499:
First, I must say thanks to you all. with your posts I learned much about the rules and how to use this editor :) Second, I will work hard on finding more reliable sources.But if there are only Non-English version, How can I do? Third, I know it's difficult to find some references (for
556:. None of the references used are about the word, they're about games, as near as I can tell - in which the word is mentioned once in each article. We can't do anythign with this word - perhaps put it in the Chinese version of Wiktionary? --
229:
the three references, which in
English and Italian, use to prove that this expression already been known by the people in the Non-Chinese world. and I think it described the situation when to use it and how to use it, at least in games.
531:. Although English sources are preferred at English Knowledge, non-English sources are also acceptable, as long as they're good published sources. There are people here who read Mandarin, though I'm not one of them. -
606:
section of that article (as "niubi" - the literal meaning is "cow's vagina"). I don't think this word is any more common in
English than the rest of the words in that list, in any case Knowledge is not a dictionary.
368:. The article doesn't indicate that there's much more to be said about this word than its definition; it doesn't appear that it is possible to expand this into an encyclopedia article because of the absence of
171:
297:
there are many expressions that have not been collected by a dictionary, but it is used for long history. How can we record them in our civilization? if wiki is not the way, where the way is?
223:
this expression is not a word can be found in a dictionary, but we speak it when we met something fantastic. if you know some chinese, you will found that they used to say it many times.
226:
Although in chinese literary works, You can't found a description of usage of this expression. they just use it directly. and those writings are in
Chinese so I can't show it here.
132:
265:
would be an acceptable assertion of usage. What you are asserting is merely the fact the word has been used in one circumstance, not even close to being enough for a
345:
anything. In your example, the mere fact that "x" has not been published in any authoritative paper is reason enough why
Knowledge cannot have an article on "x". --
165:
626:
423:
the official infomation provided by XINHUA NEWS AGENCY mentioned that the interview is at 5 pm, 8/6/1946. this infomation can be confirmed in
Chinese.
300:
on the other hand, you can see the entry "paper_tiger" in
Knowledge, what's diffrent between it and "niubee"Â ? "niubee" even has used more widely.
436:
If you are a chinese, you can know what I say, and why I make a modification to a exist entry or create a new entry about something.
541:
483:
382:
569:
303:
now I know your opinion, or the rule of
Knowledge. I will check that if I can found more evidence, or You will change your mind.
17:
202:
Contested prod. Dictionary definition. No assertion of usage beyond the three references used, two of which are in
Italian.
293:
there are many words , including "fantastic" in
English, are "merely the fact the word has been used in one circumstance".
326:
246:
186:
651:
603:
599:
153:
105:
100:
57:
49:
682:
262:
109:
36:
407:
a phrase had been used by a famous person (Mao) is more acceptable than a word is used by people in daily life?
681:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
92:
537:
479:
378:
147:
661:
565:
314:
234:
637:
612:
586:
179:
143:
68:
62:
513:
440:
318:
238:
53:
667:
641:
616:
590:
573:
546:
521:
488:
448:
387:
355:
330:
283:
250:
215:
74:
193:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
417:
the entry says the interview with Mao is in 1956, but there is no reference to confirm this.
532:
517:
474:
444:
373:
322:
242:
655:
557:
461:. If you think that article should be deleted, there are instructions on how to do so at
60:
article be omitted at a later date, the appropriateness of the redirect can be revisited.
439:
But you are not, and you said it's not acceptable. so I don't know what can I do now. --
633:
608:
582:
462:
365:
159:
470:
369:
126:
528:
505:
458:
427:
411:
401:
96:
508:. so as a newbie, i need to know what's the standard of reliable. not just for
266:
270:
426:
since You can not read and understand
Chinese, if I am going to modify the
88:
80:
420:
As you said, it's not acceptable, but the fact is it still there.
306:
I has another question which do not correlate current discussion:
54:
Knowledge:Redirect#Sub-topics_and_small_topics_in_broader_contexts
675:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
430:
entry, How can I ensure my modifaction would be acceptable?
122:
118:
114:
178:
602:. There is already a section about this word in the
504:) which are more reliable than the references for
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
685:). No further edits should be made to this page.
652:Mandarin Chinese profanity#Positive connotations
50:Mandarin Chinese profanity#Positive connotations
410:As I know, there are some mistake in the entry
192:
8:
465:. In order to make an argument for keeping
433:In current entry "niubee", It's the same:
627:list of China-related deletion discussions
621:
220:what assertion of usage can be accepted?
625:: This debate has been included in the
56:. Should mention of the topic in the
7:
24:
581:: Knowledge is not a dictionary.
527:You can read about notability at
372:discussing the term in detail. -
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
457:This discussion is not about
366:Knowledge is not a dictionary
668:14:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
617:04:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
473:that discuss it in detail. -
341:Knowledge cannot be used to
75:16:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
642:00:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
591:00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
574:21:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
547:18:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
522:17:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
489:17:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
469:article, you need to share
449:17:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
388:16:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
356:16:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
331:16:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
284:14:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
251:14:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
216:14:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
702:
600:Mandarin Chinese profanity
58:Mandarin Chinese profanity
400:And what about the entry
263:Oxford English Dictionary
678:Please do not modify it.
512:word, but for future. --
32:Please do not modify it.
654:per Ironfrost above.
604:Positive connotations
269:entry, let alone a
44:The result was
644:
630:
353:
334:
317:comment added by
281:
254:
237:comment added by
213:
693:
680:
664:
658:
631:
561:
560:Dennis The Tiger
545:
487:
471:reliable sources
386:
352:
350:
333:
311:
280:
278:
261:An entry in the
253:
231:
212:
210:
197:
196:
182:
130:
112:
73:
71:
65:
34:
701:
700:
696:
695:
694:
692:
691:
690:
689:
683:deletion review
676:
662:
656:
559:
535:
477:
414:. for example:
376:
346:
312:
274:
232:
206:
139:
103:
87:
84:
69:
63:
61:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
699:
697:
688:
687:
671:
670:
645:
619:
593:
576:
550:
549:
497:
496:
491:
398:
397:
391:
390:
359:
358:
295:
294:
287:
286:
200:
199:
136:
83:
78:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
698:
686:
684:
679:
673:
672:
669:
666:
665:
659:
653:
649:
646:
643:
639:
635:
628:
624:
620:
618:
614:
610:
605:
601:
597:
594:
592:
588:
584:
580:
577:
575:
571:
567:
563:
562:
555:
552:
551:
548:
543:
539:
534:
530:
526:
525:
524:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
495:
492:
490:
485:
481:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
453:
452:
451:
450:
446:
442:
437:
434:
431:
429:
424:
421:
418:
415:
413:
408:
405:
403:
396:
393:
392:
389:
384:
380:
375:
371:
367:
364:
361:
360:
357:
349:
344:
340:
337:
336:
335:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
307:
304:
301:
298:
292:
289:
288:
285:
277:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
256:
255:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
227:
224:
221:
218:
217:
209:
205:
195:
191:
188:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
145:
142:
141:Find sources:
137:
134:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
85:
82:
79:
77:
76:
72:
66:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
677:
674:
660:
647:
622:
595:
578:
558:
553:
509:
501:
498:
493:
466:
454:
438:
435:
432:
425:
422:
419:
416:
409:
406:
399:
394:
362:
347:
342:
338:
308:
305:
302:
299:
296:
290:
275:
258:
228:
225:
222:
219:
207:
203:
201:
189:
183:
175:
168:
162:
156:
150:
140:
45:
43:
31:
28:
533:FisherQueen
506:Paper tiger
475:FisherQueen
459:Paper tiger
428:Paper tiger
412:Paper tiger
402:Paper tiger
374:FisherQueen
313:—Preceding
273:article. --
233:—Preceding
166:free images
348:Blanchardb
276:Blanchardb
267:Wiktionary
208:Blanchardb
70:barbarian
634:Joe Chill
609:Ironfrost
583:Joe Chill
395:Question:
343:introduce
271:Knowledge
64:Skomorokh
648:Redirect
596:Redirect
542:contribs
484:contribs
383:contribs
354:- timed
327:contribs
315:unsigned
291:Comment:
282:- timed
247:contribs
235:unsigned
214:- timed
133:View log
46:redirect
494:Comment
455:Comment
370:sources
363:Delete.
204:Delete.
172:WPÂ refs
160:scholar
106:protect
101:history
579:Delete
554:Delete
514:Eliyyn
463:WP:AFD
441:Eliyyn
339:Reply:
319:Eliyyn
259:Reply:
239:Eliyyn
144:Google
110:delete
89:Niubee
81:Niubee
52:, per
663:Cobra
657:Glass
570:stuff
187:JSTOR
148:books
127:views
119:watch
115:links
16:<
638:talk
623:Note
613:talk
587:talk
568:and
566:Rawr
538:talk
529:WP:N
518:talk
510:this
502:this
480:talk
467:this
445:talk
379:talk
323:talk
243:talk
180:FENS
154:news
123:logs
97:talk
93:edit
650:to
632:--
598:to
194:TWL
131:– (
48:to
640:)
629:.
615:)
589:)
572:)
540:·
520:)
482:·
447:)
404:?
381:·
329:)
325:•
249:)
245:•
174:)
125:|
121:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
67:,
636:(
611:(
585:(
564:(
544:)
536:(
516:(
486:)
478:(
443:(
385:)
377:(
351:-
321:(
279:-
241:(
211:-
198:)
190:·
184:·
176:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
146:(
138:(
135:)
129:)
91:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.