Request for verification
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
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.
- IFYPFY for dehavocification purposes.—msh210℠ 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Red link because the slash is interpreted as part of the URI. Note that "The word is known to have over 9000 users" is an in-joke; these people are generally amused by talking about things being "OVER 9000" (from an anime series in which a spaceship's power level dangerously exceeds this, I think). Equinox ◑ 21:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
RFV failed, entry deleted. I've put two cites at Citations:/b/tard. Google News Archive finds many more, including such hits as news articles on FOXNews.com, but I can't find any that seem genuinely durably archived. Shockingly, Google Groups seems completely unhelpful for this one. (BTW, even if /b/tard does meet the CFI — which it may well — I doubt that /b/ does, seeing as names of specific entities require attributive use with a widely-understood meaning.) —RuakhTALK 18:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Linking to this entry
Please note that to avoid technical issues, this entry must be linked to like [[:/b/tard]] so that /b/tard appears instead of /b/tard. Thanks --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)