Talk:PSDP

RFV discussion
IP created entry that was nominated for speedy delete by Yair rand. I disagree with not just the speedy, but even a non-speedy delete, but assuming good faith, I brought it here after improving the entry as best I could. With close to 200,000 hits on Google for a search of PSDP Pakistan (of which 8 of the first 10 are clearly for this sense, this clearly meets CFI in my opinion. — Carolina wren discussió 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we have a criteria for inclusion of initialisms? Certainly we include some fairly well known ones, but where is the line drawn? --Yair rand 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why the need to draw a line. Is Wiktionary running out of space or something ? Why this constant thinking about deleting stuff that other people have added in good faith, and that adds vlue to Wiktionary.--Richardb 06:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming these go by the same criteria as words, PSDP certainly seems to meet the CFI. My mistake. Keep. --Yair rand 02:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Send to RFV. Available citations seem sparse. Equinox ◑ 12:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that, any objections before I (or someone) does it? Mglovesfun (talk)

The preceding is from WT:RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cited, -ish. No one seems to agree on quite what it stands for ("Public Sector Development Plan/Program/Programs/Programme"), nor on quite how it's used grammatically (countable common noun, arthrous proper noun, anarthrous proper noun), but I added four cites that give a sense of the variety. Except for the Musharraf one, which is in excellent Western English, they're all in bad and/or Indian and/or Pakistani English; this is typical of other cites that I looked at but did not include. —Ruakh TALK 21:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * RFV passed, since no one objected to my cites. But, um, if someone in the future decides to object, I'll totally understand. Feel free to re-list. —Ruakh TALK 02:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)