Talk:Viber

RFV discussion: January–February 2018

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.

---

Viber

Tagged but not listed. Existing cites do not meet WI:Brand. Kiwima (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April 2017–February 2018

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

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Viber

Moved from RFV - this belongs more properly in RFD Kiwima (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Does it fulfil our criteria for inclusion? I'm not all that convinced. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Three quotations are in the entry. The question remains whether they meet WT:BRAND, if WT:BRAND applies. The nomination does not state which specific criterion in CFI is being questioned; WT:BRAND is my buest guess. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Failed RFV and deleted by Kiwima on 5 February 2018. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It failed RFV because it did not meet WT:BRAND. Kiwima (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)