Talk:oceanic abyss
Latest comment: 4 years ago by TheDaveRoss in topic RFD discussion: June 2019–April 2020
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
The definition is inaccurate; were it to be corrected, it would be SOP with the new sense at abyss. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Here the term is used in the sense of abyssal zone, but here the term refers to the Challenger Deep, so there is used in the sense as currently defined. I haven’t examined what uses can be found in permanently recorded media, but I suspect either sense can be attested, in which case the ambiguity implies this is, apparently, not a simple SOP. --Lambiam 20:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Lambiam Do you realize that your first link is to a Minecraft mod? I don't think that qualifies for attesting. -Mike (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I implied in my second sentence that these uses are not suitable for attestation and that further examination is needed to settle the issue. The second link – in spite of it not qualifying for attesting – generates some doubt regarding the assertion in the rationale that the definition is inaccurate. --Lambiam 20:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- The countable, non-specialist use of oceanic abyss as in your second link seems to be a mildly different SOP, with a more general use of abyss. How does ambiguity between SOP usages merit keeping an entry? Brown leaf can sometimes also refer to a page from an old book, but that isn't a reason to keep it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I’m not contesting the request. Twice SOP, so let’s delete it twice then. --Lambiam 20:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- The countable, non-specialist use of oceanic abyss as in your second link seems to be a mildly different SOP, with a more general use of abyss. How does ambiguity between SOP usages merit keeping an entry? Brown leaf can sometimes also refer to a page from an old book, but that isn't a reason to keep it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- I implied in my second sentence that these uses are not suitable for attestation and that further examination is needed to settle the issue. The second link – in spite of it not qualifying for attesting – generates some doubt regarding the assertion in the rationale that the definition is inaccurate. --Lambiam 20:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Lambiam Do you realize that your first link is to a Minecraft mod? I don't think that qualifies for attesting. -Mike (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Deleted - TheDaveRoss 19:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)