Talk:residents' committee

RFD discussion: October 2017–January 2018
SoP? Not exclusive to Singapore? SemperBlotto (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even if you find use outside of Singapore: The use shown on the page and on the web shows bureaucratic formalization of such committes which lexicalizes the composition beyond its constituent words. And this is definitely one of those things one looks up in one. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 15:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah. Any non-SoP-ness is encyclopedic. Mihia (talk)
 * Keep - I believe the use of this term while it may not be exclusive to Singapore is pretty significant to Singaporeans, and the usage does not only show its bureaucratic formation but I believe it goes beyond the constituent words towards relating the term to an identity that Singaporeans could relate to. Missuniverseworldforever (talk)
 * Delete: regardless of how the entity is formed, ultimately the term is still SoP as it is a committee made up of residents, or dealing with issues relating to residents. Let's say in some fictional country the legislature is made up of people appointed by the absolute ruler of the country instead of being democratically elected. We would still describe this as "a governmental body with the power to make, amend and repeal laws", and I doubt it would be correct for us to add a sense indicating that in XYZ country the legislators are appointed rather than elected. That sort of information is for Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per SGconlaw. DCDuring (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - actually I believe the term is more than sum or parts, because inherent in the term "residents" is that it is the residents of a block of apartments or an estate of apartment blocks, it is not just any residents - SoP would be a committee of any residents in any meaning of the word, for instance if I form a committee with some people who are all residents of Australia, then I wouldn't call that a "residents' committee". Similarly you can't (or don't) have a residents' committee for people living in detached houses on a certain street, even though they are all residents of the same street. That said, I don't think it is specifically Singaporean, and the def needs changing to a more general def.. - 210.193.45.163 00:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why residents of any type of community in any country cannot form a committee and have it called a "residents' committee". Mihia (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not about whether they 'can' but whether they 'do'. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Google search finds dozens of mentions of "residents' committee" that are nothing to do with Singapore. I imagine that these committees typically have broadly similar aims to what the Singapore definition says. In English, "residents' committee" is just a generic term. In any particular locale there may be certain region-specific issues, but it is not the job of a dictionary to explain all of these. Mihia (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. Opinions of editors with little Wiktionary experience are discounted, as they are likely to be unfamiliar with the criteria for inclusion. However, consensus would be clear either way. bd2412 T 04:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)