Wikipedia has a Cuddy entry:
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)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process..
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. 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. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
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)