Talk:Fabs
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
RFV discussion[edit]
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Just found this while updating some templates. I wasn't sure to rfd, rfv or rfc it, so I brought it here. Which of our criteria does this meet, if any? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- None - it should be the Fab Four. SemperBlotto
- If one does, the other probably does too, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Cited. Equinox ◑ 15:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hang on, I'd compare it to Spidey, an informal nickname for a specific entry. Do these entries meet our criteria simply by being attestable? If yes, great, no complaints from me. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reminds me of the recent Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#iTouch; similar terms include (deprecated template usage) Ab Fab, (deprecated template usage) Apop, (deprecated template usage) Mickey D, and (deprecated template usage) Codies. However, since this has been brought to RFV, it only needs attestation, and I've shown that it is actually used. Equinox ◑ 15:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Recommend keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reminds me of the recent Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#iTouch; similar terms include (deprecated template usage) Ab Fab, (deprecated template usage) Apop, (deprecated template usage) Mickey D, and (deprecated template usage) Codies. However, since this has been brought to RFV, it only needs attestation, and I've shown that it is actually used. Equinox ◑ 15:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hang on, I'd compare it to Spidey, an informal nickname for a specific entry. Do these entries meet our criteria simply by being attestable? If yes, great, no complaints from me. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Cited and kept. Anyone objecting to its inclusion, rather than its attestability, should open a new RFD. Equinox ◑ 17:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)