Talk:MRDA

The original entry posted yesterday was deleted by SemperBlotto as "Tosh". I fail to see why. This is a common acronym in the UK with numerous on-line references (a number included in the article)

RFV discussion

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.

---

Protologism? Nothing that I can see on Google books, very few in groups or blogs. SemperBlotto 16:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardly Protologism, It has been around for at least 20 years. If you are going to use US based references then you will not find MRDA. It is uniquely British and widely used amongst UK Journalists. On-line references (including The Guardian and PC Pro) as follows:

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/001478.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2005/jun/20/linuxisterrib

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/realworld/72627/keep-it-simple-stupid

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2007/may/03/pcworldeditor

— This unsigned comment was added by Nobby fuzzy (talk • contribs) at 17:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC).

• Not one of those references uses the term (deprecated template usage) MRDA - they just define what it is. SemperBlotto 17:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not so. I quote:

"In the UK, we say MRDA,"

— This unsigned comment was added by Nobby fuzzy (talk • contribs) at 17:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC).

Yeah, that's a mention, not a use. See Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Conveying meaning and w:Use–mention distinction. Unlike Wikipedia, we're not a tertiary source that presents what other sources say about something; rather, we go directly to the actual uses of the term. If there aren't any — that is, if it's a term that people claim exists, but that no one ever actually uses — then it has no place here. —Ruakh_TALK 18:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 23:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)