Never heard either of the last two, the first one is clearly SoP. Furthermore it seems beyond what should be included in a phrasebook, perhaps the 'phrasebook' tag was added by the creator to discourage a deletion nomination, not because the tag is appropriate. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Is it a phrase? If so, the phrasebook tag is appropriate. And never having heard of something isn't in itself reason enough for deletion Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker) 17:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The phrasebook isn't for all phrases. See the message 'This entry is part of the phrasebook project, which presents criteria for inclusion based on usefulness, simplicity and commonness.' We have other phrases in Category:English phrases which are here for different reasons (i.e. WT:CFI#Idiomaticity). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
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.
Indicates how much smartphones can do.
Indicates the widespread number of smartphone applications
Deleting the first sense if these two fail is trivial so I'm not even gonna tag it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You say that, of the first 20, none of them support this sense. Possibly none of them even support the literal 'an app exists for this function' sense, they're all uses in titles of papers, in one case, it was actually in one of the advertisements at the side of the paper. Personally I'd like to see just one citation for each of these, so I know what sort of thing we'd be looking for. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, I saw that one but it doesn't convey this meaning. I don't see why we would ever speedy close an rfv nomination where even the entry creator can't find a single citation. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. Simultaneously RFD-failed. - -sche(discuss) 09:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
First sense is defined as: "Indicates that a smartphone application is available to perform a specific task."
Our definition for app covers "smartphone application". Existential there. Deixis. This is just a catchphrase. Contrast with an earlier catchphrase, where's the beef, which came to use beef in a meaning ("substance; (figurative, static) meat") it did not have and still doesn't have apart from this expression, AFAICT, so that it is not SoP. DCDuringTALK 15:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
In fairness, on WT:RFV#there's an app for that I said "Deleting the first sense if these two fail is trivial so I'm not even gonna tag it." where "these two" refer to the other two definitions present in the entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time resisting the urge to just speedy the entry. -- Liliana• 16:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a smartphone application available to perform that specific task. DAVilla 08:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Any reason, or just because you created the entry? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If we keep it, we need to clean it up. The definitions explain vaguely what the term is thought to mean rather than defining it clearly. Explaining is for usage notes, if needed at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing more than the sum of its parts. ---> Tooironic (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete. What does this have to with smartphones? You can say that for *any* software on *any* platform and carries *no* idiomatic meaning other than the fact that yes there is an application for what you've described. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)