Talk:Count Dracula

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.

---

Count Dracula

Famous fictional character from literature, but (unlike, say, Jekyll and Hyde, Frankenstein's monster, or Mrs. Robinson) probably not a generic term for anything. I would delete this for the same reason I would not admit Tom Sawyer. Equinox ◑ 21:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

...which we have. Goddammit. But it's supposedly a verb. Equinox ◑ 21:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Tom Sawyer#Verb might be OK, at least in the US, subject to confirmation by attestation. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete or replace with {{only in}} WP. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong keep as linguistic per use in metaphor: "the Count Dracula of the corporate world", "the Count Dracula of law enforcement", "the Count Dracula of experience" all found on first page of Goole Books search. DAVilla 06:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep, per DAVilla, and redefine. --Yair rand (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that the old attributive use rule is gone, we do need more, better thought out rules to deal with this stuff. Having said that, we usually ignore the rules and just have a 'vote', unlike RFV where we rely on evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My best shot at it was here. DAVilla 05:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We do have an attributive-use requirement for people from fictional universes. So this really belongs at RFV (though DAVilla says it'd pass there so if someone plans to bring it there he should first make sure DAVilla's wrong). In otherwords: keep.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Kept for no consensus to delete.--Jusjih 09:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)