Talk:Dominicoon

RFV discussion: July–August 2022

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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.

---

Dominicoon

This entry, or one or more of its senses, has been nominated as derogatory pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY. It may be speedily deleted if it does not have at least three quotations meeting the attestation requirements within two weeks of the nomination date, that is, by 2 August 2022.

This is exactly the kind of entry WT:DEROGATORY was made for. 98.170.164.88 22:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Americoon

[1], [2], [3] — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

And here we go. It hasn't even been 3 days since the vote has passed and the first trivially citable derogatory term has already been speedied. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: @Mahagaja deleted it; because two weeks have not passed since the RFV, I have undeleted it. J3133 (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@J3133: More than two weeks had passed since its creation, so it was deletable under WT:DEROGATORY even without an RFV. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: “An editor may nominate this entry or the challenged sense(s) for deletion or verification by editing it to apply the template {{rfd}}, {{rfd-sense}}, {{rfv}}, or {{rfv-sense}} as appropriate. If the entry does not have at least three quotations meeting the attestation requirements within two weeks of the nomination date, the entry may also be speedily deleted.” J3133 (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: As the proposal is yours, who is correct? J3133 (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@J3133: I had intended your interpretation, but I can see how the policy might be ambiguous on the point. If there’s really confusion over the issue, after the policy has been in place for a month or two, we can decide if it needs tweaks and a further clarificatory vote. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha The policy specifically says that it's without prejudice to re-creation. Theknightwho (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Failed per WT:DEROGATORY. No qualifying quotations added. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Funny guy. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)