The result was keep. It's apparent from the discussion that consensus hasn't changed from the previous nomination. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC) reply
"Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide." Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary.
This acronym has an extension, that is a list of some countries. But its intension is indeterminate. To qualify for an an encyclopedia, a concept in question must be there, which has at minimum a range of a clear, identifiable meaning. It does not help to give a dictionnary account, or to do own research to deliver a history of acronym usage. That could only establish a theory of his own research.
This argument against encycplodical quality represents as such a new argument, which was not considered at the first deletion discussion that centered on neutrality. Meffo ( talk) 07:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
All those arguments are bypassing the question, if there is any determinable concept which could be linked to the acronym. There is not "more than a definition"; in the lemma there is 1. no definition at all, 2. which could be verified by a reliable source. The explanations given are not more than 1. original lingusticial oder media research of verbal usages, 2. the frequency statistics (Goggle etc.) measure no singular concept, but not more than a combination of letters. Wikipedia as an enyclopedia is more than a dictionnary or a list of acronyms by translation. -- Meffo ( talk) 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
-- 82.18.192.27 ( talk) 16:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. It's apparent from the discussion that consensus hasn't changed from the previous nomination. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC) reply
"Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide." Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary.
This acronym has an extension, that is a list of some countries. But its intension is indeterminate. To qualify for an an encyclopedia, a concept in question must be there, which has at minimum a range of a clear, identifiable meaning. It does not help to give a dictionnary account, or to do own research to deliver a history of acronym usage. That could only establish a theory of his own research.
This argument against encycplodical quality represents as such a new argument, which was not considered at the first deletion discussion that centered on neutrality. Meffo ( talk) 07:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
All those arguments are bypassing the question, if there is any determinable concept which could be linked to the acronym. There is not "more than a definition"; in the lemma there is 1. no definition at all, 2. which could be verified by a reliable source. The explanations given are not more than 1. original lingusticial oder media research of verbal usages, 2. the frequency statistics (Goggle etc.) measure no singular concept, but not more than a combination of letters. Wikipedia as an enyclopedia is more than a dictionnary or a list of acronyms by translation. -- Meffo ( talk) 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
-- 82.18.192.27 ( talk) 16:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply