Talk:killer instinct

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

killer instinct

Was tagged for speedy deletion (as SOP), but I think it should probably be kept. I think the relevant sense of "killer" is "one that kills" (which we have as "that which kills"), and the relevant sense of "kill" is "To overpower, overwhelm, or defeat" (which we have), but still, that's a pretty tenuous connection IMHO. This phrase seems to have a life of its own. —Ruakh_TALK 21:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Argumentum ad lemmos: a few OneLook dictionaries have this. DCDuring TALK 22:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep; in the case of the citation (any many other uses) it doesn't refer to the instinct to kill. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added a definition (we normally include these) in case we decide to keep it. SemperBlotto 22:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a set phrase. Keep. ---> Tooironic 13:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Inicidentally, I've cited the adjective "killer", such as google books:"was totally killer". Mglovesfun (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! For the record — "was totally killer" is no more proof of adjective-ness than bare "was killer" (since "totally" can be a modal adverb, modifying the entire clause it resides in: "What do you mean, it's not water? It's totally water!"), but since "killer" in normal uses is a count noun, and I'm not aware of any unambiguous mass-noun uses, I think "was killer" would best be viewed as using it as an adjective even in the absence of unambiguous adjective use. —Ruakh_TALK 14:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, keep. DAVilla 05:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Prince Kassad 09:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)