While Request for deletion has already past, if anyone proposes deletion again, I want to suggest that this term not be deleted. If the entry were predicated on the adjective definition of "very few", then it would merely be a sum-of-parts entry and should be deleted. However the term has an adverbial usage meaning "seldom," etc. which is NOT a sum-of-parts usage. Therefore it should be kept --达伟 15:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
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.
- imo<censrd>nom.[wt so pluralistic,isugest nobelpeacepriz
- we=nopaper orcare bout othadict.[idont,pil'ofrubish they r w/o exc.
- v.gud entry,h-tr,keep'mcomin pl!--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 04:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unless Tooironic (or indeed, anyone at all) can explain why this should be deleted, I see no reason to leave this debate open indefinitely just "hoping" someone will explain what the problem is. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Since Chinese writing is not space-delimited, the argument would be that this is sum of parts, equivalent to "very few" (很+少). I don't know enough about Mandarin to have an opinion; but it would be nice if someone knowledgeable in the language would weigh in. The note in the template about "few, if any" dictionaries having an entry gives me pause. If there are real dictionaries (not just termdumps) that include it, IMO we should probably do the same. -- Visviva 13:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. This can also mean 'too few', i.e. 'not enough', but does not have quite the same connotation as 'not enough'. It's difficult to quantify, but there is no other phrase or combination of characters that conveys exactly this sense. bd2412 T 17:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)