Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annadaana

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 transwiki to Wiktionary. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annadaana

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable word/phrase WuhWuzDat 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — æk ^Talk 05:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary. — æk ^Talk 05:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Transwiki to Telugu Wiktionary, if there is one. en.Wiktionary is for the English language, isn't it, and there's no indication of this word having entered the English language. Doesn't seem to be much more notable than countless other words which...well, exist. We don't have an article for every word, obviously. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 12:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Let them discuss their own standards for inclusion. Cnilep (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lord Spongefrog. --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete or TW - Agree totally with Sponge and Cnilep, it doesn't seem notable enough for a stand alone entry in Wikipedia. Jeffrey Mall (talk • Happy New Year) - 19:42, 2 January 2010 (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.