RFV discussion
edit
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Prove in quotes, please. Goldenrowley 02:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ruakh has deleted it. Equinox ◑ 22:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did, but I think I was wrong to do so: the term doesn't seem to be a year old yet, but it gets enough relevant hits on Google News that I think it warrants the full RFV period. The entry's creator objected on my talk-page, and I've now undeleted it pending the normal month. (And given how long a lot of these remain open, it may have been around a year before anyone gets around to RFV-failing, it anyway. :-P ) —RuakhTALK 23:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I added a quotation and think it can be considered cited at this point. The term clearly is not going away any time soon. Dominic·t 06:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I did, but I think I was wrong to do so: the term doesn't seem to be a year old yet, but it gets enough relevant hits on Google News that I think it warrants the full RFV period. The entry's creator objected on my talk-page, and I've now undeleted it pending the normal month. (And given how long a lot of these remain open, it may have been around a year before anyone gets around to RFV-failing, it anyway. :-P ) —RuakhTALK 23:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
RFV passed. (Technically, I'm not actually sure if Salon.com is durably archived. However, this term is certainly still in use today, more than a year later. The only tricky part might be citing it in lowercase, which is not worth quibbling over IMHO. It's been over a week and a half since Dominic tagged this cited, and no one objected. If someone in the future wants to object, they can re-list it.) —RuakhTALK 00:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)