Talk:babyloser

RFV discussion — failed

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.

---

I'm actually RFVing my own word here, because it looks like it might not pass WT:CFI and only Jason Burke has used it (in English, (deprecated template usage) bien sur). Has anyone encountered this in English by another author? I love saying it in French though. Babby-low-ZUR. Equinox ◑ 00:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it meets the CFI even as a French word. google groups:"babyloser|babylosers" gets two hits: one unrelated (a blend of (deprecated template usage) Babylon 5 and (deprecated template usage) loser), and one being a copy of the Observer citation you give that references Chauvel directly. google books:"babyloser"∪"babylosers" gets four: one Spanish (referencing Chauvel), three German (?). google news archive:"babyloser"∪"babylosers" gets four: one English (the aforementioned Observer article), one Greek (referencing Chauvel), one Spanish (referencing Chauvel), and one Flemish (Belgian Dutch). And google scholar:"babyloser|babylosers" doesn't seem to pull up anything of relevance. All told, this doesn't seem to meet the CFI in any language, especially if we're uptight about independence. (Of course, I only looked at Google-indexed sources, which are bound to miss a great deal, but probably makes it unlikely we can find other durably archived sources.) Sorry. :-/   —Ruakh_TALK 01:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 23:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)