Talk:HitlerFan1488

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Purplebackpack89 in topic RFD discussion: April–May 2024
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFD discussion: April–May 2024

[edit]

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

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.


RFD was opened by an IP user (@Sundaydriver1?) with the initial comment:

  • It's just a user-name; other user-names were used trice or more as well and thus would pass the basic WT:CFI criteria (e.g. Amouranth, Rezo).
  • WT:CFI#NSE: "No individual person should be listed as a sense [some restriction]". Likely this restriction should be extended.

Lunabunn (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep as the RFD seems misguided. The entry already contains 3 quotes (and I see that more attestations aren't hard to find), meaning the entry already passes the basic CFI attestation requirement.
The term also does not refer to an individual person; it is a notional username, as already clearly stated in the definition. Lunabunn (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Not a user name, but an archetype, like Mrs. Watanabe. Equinox 16:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Compare Firstname Bunchofnumbers. Binarystep (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Move to RFV, this term seems too obscure for inclusion. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
How many attestations are needed? Are the three existing attestations not sufficient?  --Lambiam 23:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Move to RFV per Ioaxxere. lattermint (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep per Lunabunn, Equinox, and Binarystep. CJ-Moki (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not going to strike this myself, but I'd take a look at the contributions of this user: Special:Contributions/CJ-Moki. Especially the fact that they have fewer than 50 edits + a significant percentage of them are for... questionable entries. AG202 (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Move to RFV. There need to be more durable quotes. Reddit has not been allowed yet as a durable source per WT:CFI. The vote at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/September § Reddit ended in 9-9, and the quoted issues still persist. Tumblr as a source is questionable (also has not been allowed yet), and I'm definitely not for a random message board counting for CFI, whose link doesn't even lead to the comment being mentioned. At least find some Twitter quotes. CC: @Lunabunn, @Lambiam AG202 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I’ve not kept up with the policy changes on online-only sources. Does this count?
“Like, incoming argument that sounds like a ridiculous strawman but is genuinely sincere; let's say we get a new user named HitlerFan1488 (or something less ridiculous) and the first thing they do is create a page for a Fanfic named 'The Nazis Did Nothing Wrong', and it's exactly what you imagine.”[1]
At least, this makes it abundantly clear that the term us not “just a username” and does not refer to any individual person.
Is there something special about Twitter uses? Here is one:
“Oh yes, those noted liberals on Twitter like "HitlerFan1488" and "OvenLordCuckslayer666" just have it so hard here.”[2]
The term is unlikely to be found in printed sources. This will increasingly be true for new terms entering the lexicon.  --Lambiam 06:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Twitter tends to count, yes. AG202 (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Kept clear consensus to keep at RfD. Article may still face an RfV Purplebackpack89 21:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply