The phrase "leaf storm" is perfectly good English, and does occasionally occur outside the context of GGM. However, it's not idiomatic. By a strict reading of CFI it should be removed, but we also tend to include non-idiomatic terms that slip in for various reasons, particularly if they feature in a printed work. I don't have a strong opinion on whether to keep this. -dmh 7 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)
- I do have a strong opinion on keeping this. How else are the translations of the Spanish and the German entries to get linked? Polyglot 19:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with Polyglot. If we remove translations for all foreign language entries (which I agree is a good idea) then we should have placeholder entries for all three (or is it four) exceptions to the rule...such as this.
- Furthermore, how does this not meet WT:CFI? We include *lots* of phrases that are not idiomatic. --Connel MacKenzie 19:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
RFD
edit
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
The usage notes claim that this fails CFI. — Paul G 17:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we should necessarily take the usage note's word as gospel; it wasn't put there by the editor who first created the entry (though granted, it was put there by the editor who actually defined the term). Certainly the usage note isn't completely correct as it stands: the phrase is used many times within the English translation of the novella, not just as its title. I think this warrants an RFV process to determine whether there are indeed no independent cites. —RuakhTALK 19:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The usage note appears to have been incorrect. -- Visviva 17:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
RFV
edit This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
For some reason, Razorflame moved leaf storm to leafstorm, but the citations actually use leaf-storm. That's attestable (assuming the citations are correct) but leafstorm only appears in one citation, hence needs to more. I was reluctant to move the page, in case this spelling also meets CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- RFV-failed / moved. - -sche (discuss) 04:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- (After a RFD, now cited. - -sche (discuss) 00:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC))
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
A storm of leaves. leafstorm failed RFV so COALMINE doesn't apply here. -- Liliana • 04:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, alright, I've cited leafstorm (so that it should pass RFV now). I initially moved the page to the at-that-time already-attested leaf-storm and marked leafstorm as RFV-failed on the theory that the content would remain, but if it needs to be unhyphenated to remain, unhyphenated citations can (and have) be(en) found. - -sche (discuss) 03:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Striking as kept for no consensus for deletion, and for the term's meeting WT:COALMINE now that -sche has added citations to leafstorm. --Dan Polansky 20:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)