Talk:cuddy
Wikipedia has a Cuddy entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuddy
Should this Wiktionary entry be parallel?
- I think the Wiktionary entry is fairly good as it is, though we could link to the Wikipedia article. Conrad.Irwin 17:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. See archived discussion of August 2008. 06:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
RFV[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Rfv-sense cuddly SemperBlotto 07:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've tried the following Google Book searches: "cuddier", "cuddiest", "more cuddy", "most cuddy" and "is cuddy". These all get nothing relevant. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- ¶ “so cuddy” and “feels cuddy” do not turn up relevant results either, and I have personally never seen this word in literature; this sense is also not on etymonline.com. ¶ I doubt anybody is goïng to worry if an informal form gets speedy‐deletion. --Pilcrow 20:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I finished the set with am/are/was/were/be/being cuddy. I supposed I missed "been cuddy" in that case. I'm gonna go out and a limb and say that will give me zero relevant hits. Oh but may as well give it 30 days, or else what is rfv for? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Deleted unverified. Ƿidsiþ 13:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)