Talk:BBCesque
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
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.
I have never heard of such word. I don't think anyone would use BBCesque to describe something resembling to the BBC. The page has also been inactive for the last two years and it sounds like a made-up word. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- It is certainly unusual. But Google book search shows quite a few usages. It already has three valid citations, so would pass RfV. An obvious keep. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. You are not using RFD correctly. I urge you to read the documentation, like I said before when you kept asking questions. Equinox ◑ 17:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep of course. Not only is this a matter for RFV, but it was clearly cited from the time of its creation. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per the above. Note that there is policy basis for nominating an entry for deletion merely because it has been "inactive" for any number of years. While we update entries to reflect new developments in the language, a complete and properly formatted entry for which nothing new has happened can go undisturbed for many years. bd2412 T 02:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Snowball RFD kept. This is a waste of everyone's time. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)