Talk:ruricolist

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

ruricolist

--Connel MacKenzie 07:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Even OED2+ lists it as rare, with no cites and a ref to another dict in 1730. 2 independent b.g.c. hits showing usage, and about 7 dictionaries. Nothing on Gutenberg. One non-durable usage hit from Metacrawler, and 41 dictionaries. That's very few hits for such a long timespan. Not my cup of tea. --Enginear 19:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Although three months were provided beyond the one month normally allowed for the discovery of instances of use, no verification could be found that this word exists. RFVfailed. -- Beobach972 01:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

RFD

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

ruricolist

Although three months were provided beyond the one month normally allowed for the discovery of instances of use, no verification could be found that this word exists. It has failed RFV and may now be deleted. -- Beobach972 01:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

More accurately, it does (or did) exist, but it did not clearly meet CFI, and no one bothered to champion it. It is in OED2, marked as rare, with one cite (1730). There are two independent bgc cites of English usage (1860 & 1885), which appear to be for a different meaning (which probably matches our definition). (Bgc claims 23 hits, but some are copies and others are not English.) Unless someone finds a third cite for that meaning, it does not meet CFI. --Enginear 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Despite the above, I have opted to restore this entry upon discovering a third citation. This could do with one of them ====Dictionary notes==== sections too. -- Visviva 18:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)