Talk:proalitionist
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.
This is marked as hot word. For one thing, WT:CFI does not recognize the notion of a hot word as far as attestation. But even assuming we bend WT:CFI: from what I understood from the proponents of hot words, hot words would fail the "spanning at least a year" requirement of WT:ATTEST, but otherwise would be attested. This is not attested by even a relaxed standard. google books:"proalitionist", google groups:"proalitionist", “proalitionist”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., google books:"proalitionists", google groups:"proalitionists", “proalitionists”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Even google:proalitionist and google:proalitionists finds very few hits. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing on Books or Groups, and all but one of the regular Google search hits are for a specific article or direct quotes from that article in news aggregation sites. Definitely not widespread. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- "proalition" was briefly popular in late 2012, early 2013, but it looks like it had no staying power. Both terms seem to fail CFI at the moment. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)