Talk:จับได้
Deletion discussion edit
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Sum-of-parts. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
This has an entry in Thai SEAlang originating in the [www.sealang.net/thai/tdp.htm "The Mary Haas Thai Dictionary Project" (TDP)]. There's always difficulties with compounding languages and languages that don't use word breaks. Since SEAlang has multiple sources but only one for this word we could infer that it might go too far in including SOP terms compared to other Thai dictionaries. We should probably go for a consensus among our Thai experts and multiple dictionaries in such cases. The same goes for Chinese, Khmer, Lao, Vietnamese. — hippietrail (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep since not enough other input has been provided. Thus, erring on the side of usefulness at the risk of redundancy. Entered to mean "to arrest or grab successfully." The sum is จับ (“to arrest; to grab”) + ได้ (“successfully”). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
No consensus to delete after extended period for discussion. bd2412 T 14:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
(Renomination) Sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Deleted. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Objection: These were previously RFD kept (see Talk:จับได้) and you cannot close as "deleted" a discussion with only one support for deletion. Let's suppose there are two supporters of deletion now. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Closed, as there have been no expressions of support for retaining the term for more than a month. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Objection: These were previously RFD kept (see Talk:จับได้) and you cannot close as "deleted" a discussion with only one support for deletion. Let's suppose there are two supporters of deletion now. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)