Talk:hamplanet

RFV discussion: September 2016–April 2017

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.

---

hamplanet

Can't find any cites, but sending to RFV just in case, because it is actually used. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added a few. Kiwima (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

But none are from what we accept as durably archived sources. Usenet? DCDuring TALK 11:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Recreated by User:Ioaxxere and still not properly cited: two are mentions, not uses, and the third is "ham planet" with a space. Equinox ◑ 13:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Equinox — don't delete it yet. It's citable off of Scholar. Ioaxxere (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Ioaxxere (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere: I wasn't planning to delete it because (in this case) I've seen it online enough, for enough years, that I can't dispute the existence. Still, we have the rules for a reason (minimum quality/sanity filter), and if you can cite something to CFI quality you should do so in the first place... to avoid all this. Equinox ◑ 04:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yessir. Back in the day I was a bit gung ho with quoting mentions... Ioaxxere (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

True origin?

It said it was from Reddit, but an IP has just removed that. Can we confirm/deny? Equinox ◑ 16:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)