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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soumabha[edit]

Soumabha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I'm not sure if this falls under the category of a dictionary definition (if the definition of the term is correct) or as an attack page if the definition is just an underhanded way of calling somone a know-it-all. In either case, it's pretty clear this page has no place on the encyclopedia. May well be a speedy-delete candidate, but I wouldn't know what criteria to use. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Dicdef move to wiktionary or delete. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced dictionary entry. De728631 (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As Soumabha seems to be fairly common as a name, and as the definition given is not on usually found as a name meaning (in my experience...), I would think it's an mildish attack. I'm not sure enough to delete it out of hand, though. Someone else might be. I don't think Wiktionary would welcome it with no references. Peridon (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment unlike wikipedia, wiktionary seems to have almost no references... 65.93.12.101 (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2011 (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.