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.
RFVs for four senses (the first three are nominal, the fourth is adjectival):
(obsolete) A thing of little or no value.
This sense already has a supporting citation from "1 Samuel XXIV, 14". Since the Bible is pretty obviously a well-known work, does that mean that this sense passes by satisfying the second criterion for inclusion?
A trite or dull subject of discussion or consideration.
(of an idea or topic) Trite or dull.
Given the example sentence provided (He continues to bring up that dead dog plan of his.), this may just be an attributive use of the third (nominal) sense.
It's interesting to note that senses 1, 3, and 4 were previously deleted. The RFD discussion was not archived on the associated talk page. Could anyone shed light upon why this entry was twice deleted with that information (especially considering that the first had that Biblical quotation appended to it)? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. The citation would also support sense 1 as a definition of flea (now added). The application of the "well-known work" rule has always bothered me. It operation together with automatic inclusion of metaphorical senses seems to take us to an absurd conclusion: Every metaphor in every well-known work may provide attestation for a sense of each constituent of the metaphor. I sense countless hours of amusement ahead. DCDuringTALK 23:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Sense #1 is indeed sufficiently cited, though editors are welcome to add additional uses that derive from the Biblical ones in I and II Samuel. I have added one quotation to support sense #3. --EncycloPetey 00:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think sense #1 is sufficiently cited. Terms used in well-known works meet the CFI, but metaphors don't become "terms" unless they've got uptake. —RuakhTALK 01:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)