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.
Absolutely no results for the exact phrase "Greenland wolf spider" in Google or on Books, Groups, or Scholar. Neither of the two given references appears to use the term "Greenland wolf spider". Equinox◑ 18:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
For all your foul-tempered blustering (yes, I saw your original response to this), the fact remains that the phrase cannot be found anywhere on the Internet. Or prove me wrong by quoting the exact sentence that uses the phrase "Greenland wolf spider". Equinox◑ 19:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This should be deleted, we aren't here to conjecture or proscribe, and there is no use of this as a phrase. —This unsigned comment was added by Conrad.Irwin (talk • contribs).
Do we speedy-delete entries without even Web use? We should. DCDuringTALK 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That could probably safely be made a "rule", since if we need citations spanning a year there is basically no way there won't be anything on the Web. (People talk online about what they've read in the papers, and half of the neologisms are widespread online before the media pick them up.) Equinox◑ 00:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend it as a "rule". There are still Latin words and obsolete words that I do not find on the internet but which I can find in other reference works. --EncycloPetey 21:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
To the extent it might become a rule, it would have to be limited to multi-word English terms, though this would bias us against undocumented idioms. We just could use some way of accelerating the handling of entries with very low probability of meeting WT:CFI. It afford a safe harbor for patrollers. DCDuringTALK 21:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
You guys should really read this article it would make you better editors and administrators: Don't be a dick. WritersCramp 19:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I got in touch with Jens Böcher < JJBocher@snm.ku.dk > he makes the following recommendation:
:In agreement with the Danish spider specialist Søren Toft, I recommend that you use the name: 'arctic wolf spider' for Pardosa glacialis. Sincerely yours Jens Böcher Zoological Museum Copenhagen
So will everyone agree to the use of "Arctic wolf spider" ?? WritersCramp 14:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I only found one jocular use of that term in our usual on-line sources of attestation. Are there print sources that you could refer us to? What is the Danish name? It might be easier to attest to a Danish or other vernacular name and include links to Wikispecies etc and a mention of the proposed English vernacular name(s). Thus, when, as, and if they come into use, the Danish entry could be the basis for the English entry(ies). DCDuringTALK 15:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, if you require more information, I would suggest sending him an email. I have done enough -:) WritersCramp 15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)