My understanding is that although this is technically in the Appendix namespace, it is treated as if it was in mainspace (which it would be, if the title were supportable by MW software). If that's true, it would need to be cited to stay. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds04:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested in the RFV of the English name for titin that it be moved to a LOP-like List of Novelties, along with the long Mecklenburg-Vorpommern laws that failed RFV. Going out on a limb and assuming this is unciteable, I'll start setting up such a Appendix now. - -sche(discuss)05:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the last RFV, I didn't feel like creating a new appendix offshoot of LOP just for the name of titin, so I just moved methionyl...isoleucine back to its old Unsupportedtitles appendix. (The Unsupportedtitles appendix also gets 'neater' headwords courtesy of MediaWiki:Badtitletext.) But I've set up such an offshoot now, so I'll move the English and German names of titin to it. The CFI are relaxed for many appendices, and a few appendices are completely exempt from them and either subject to other criteria (such as the list of dictionary-only terms, and now probably the list of long words) or free-for-all (such as the LOP). - -sche(discuss)20:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appendices absolutely should not be free-for-all spaces. Dictionary-only terms should demonstrably be included in dictionaries or other reliably sourced word lists. The LOP is of questionable value to this project altogether. bd2412T17:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
