Talk:Wikibooks
Request for verification[edit]
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.
Was rfd'd without being listed - does anyone know what kind of cites we are looking for to show that this exists? Conrad.Irwin 00:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not a brand name or company name. As CFI is currently written, cites would have to be attributive. DAVilla 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 01:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, I thought we hadn't yet figured out what to do with the "Names of specific entities" stuff. Why should this be deleted if we still have entries for Wiktionary, all the other WM projects, the US presidents, and all that other junk with no attributive cites? --Yair rand 18:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because I'm not capable of deleting all those entries simultaneously. I deleted this one because it was here, had been here for over a month and a half, and had only one citation (which wasn't attributive, or figurative, or generic, or anything, but rather was a simple mention of the Web-site, together with an explanation of what it was). If you'd like to RFV and/or RFD all those other entries, be my guest. In the meantime, I really don't think "[[[[Foo]]]] hasn't been deleted yet" is a compelling argument to leave [[[[bar]]]] in place after it's failed RFV. —RuakhTALK 18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)