Talk:RPattz

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.


RPattz[edit]

If we don't include Robert Pattinson, why include this? Also it's a proper noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Cannot find any clause or section of CFI which might justify this entry. -- Gauss 09:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Ƿidsiþ 15:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

JBiebs[edit]

See above talk:RPattz when archived. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Cannot find any clause or section of CFI which might justify this entry. -- Gauss 09:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

RATM[edit]

See above talk:RPattz when archived. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep; Robert Pattinson etc. would be entries describing a particular person (or band), while these are semi-obscure, semi-slangy terms used to refer to those particular people or band and therefore within the scope of a dictionary. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 20:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Compare Led Zep, iTouch, Apop and Codies. Equinox 23:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Under our existing practice there is no basis for deleting such abbreviations AFAICT. We have many abbreviations of non-includable terms, both NISoP terms and proper names. I would favor rules that would exclude these and similar terms while still being more inclusive of abbreviations than of the abbrevienda. DCDuring TALK 20:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete, although DCD is correct that we have no basis in policy for deleting these. I think we need a policy covering nicknames of specific persons. I'd want to keep the Old Pretender and the Bard (if they existed), but I don't see that there's any value in keeping recently coined nicknames for "celebrities". --EncycloPetey 21:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Fwiw, we do have [[Sweet Swan of Avon]].​—msh210 (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I say process these under the standard for brand names. Find three CFI-worthy citations in print, spanning three yeas, that do not also mention the unabbreviated form, or provide genre cues. If they can not be found, delete. bd2412 T 19:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep

1.The party which apparently moved to rfd did not even present a case for deletion. 2.Apparently the party which moved to rfd cavalierly refers to "the above". I contend that the burden is on the movant and must be a self contained request. It should not be incumbent upon interested editors to parse the entirety of a very long page to seek out some other article. 3. Even if (2) is not upheld, there is no unambigous indication of which of the many entries "above" we are supposed to be looking for. 4. Even if we decipher the puzzle presented by the rfd movant, there is no way to determine which specific phrase of their writings they believe are pertinent. 5. Aside from the failure to present any case for deletion, whatsoever, the obvious defense is that RATM is an idiomatic English language term which is firmly established in colloquial West Coast youth culture, and by youth I mean anyone under 65 years of age who is aware of contemporary culture. 6. I concur with Equinox, there is ample precedent. 7. As DCxxx asserts, "abbreviations" are includable even when abbrevianda are not. However, in the instant case, it is not established that Rage Against the Machine is not includable, and, even if it is, RATM is a separate case and, more to the point, is not an "abbreviation" at all. It is an idiomatic word which is a hybrid of initialisation/acronym -not the same thing as an abbreviation, at all. It which can even be properly pronounced RATM. The abbreviation is actually "Rage". 8. As a hybrid initialisation/acronym it is a particularly interesting word. That rarity alone makes its case. Pronounced "rat-immm" or "Ar-Ay-Tee-Emm". In actual usage,often read as Rage-Against-the-Machine, an interesting pattern of use in and of it self. 9. This is not an old paper dictionary. 10.EncycloPetey, while voting delete, admits there is no policy supporting deletion, so that vote self-annihilates and is not a legitimate countable vote. EnPete really needs to change his vote to abstain and write up an essay or proposal for a policy modification. 11. Independently of EncycloPete's self-dissolving, "Mission Impossible" non-vote, his or her proposed policy makes no sense because it suggests that we should keep sixteenth century entries but contemporary words with the same qualifications should be excluded. 12. The rfd does not pass the smell test. Imagine a poor beseiged inner city English teacher wondering what the kids are talking about...her OED won't do her much good.

Please respond to each of these objections or surrender the field. Thanks. Geofferybard 23:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Move to RfV. All three of these seem to be trade names. Accordingly, they should meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
No I don't think these are brand names by any stretch of the imagination. My objection to "Imagine a poor beseiged inner city English teacher wondering what the kids are talking about...her OED won't do her much good." is that once you start adding terms because people might look them up, you can justify anything - Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are common searches here. That said, we allow acronyms for other single entities like WHO and BBC, so perhaps we should just allow these by default when they are attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
(My objection to the teacher thing is "why on Earth would a teacher turn to a dictionary to look up pop bands?".) Equinox 12:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete or send to RFV. No one really uses this and they aren't attestable. TeleComNasSprVen 01:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Cannot find any clause or section of CFI which might justify this entry. Examples by Equinox not comparable. -- Gauss 09:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

deleted all after Widsith already deleted one above. -- Liliana 14:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)