Talk:barebum

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.

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.

---

barebum

Equinox also deleted this entry for no reason except bullying and personal spite stating, "Lucifer rubbish. no evidence for this. nonstandard, not in books, not Aussie as claimed.)" But this is not rubbish, it is a durable citable word, a one word compound at that, whether it is non standard is irreverent and not grounds for deleting, it is in google books so Equinox is lying or did not check as a search for "barebum" immediately renders numerous hits on the first page, bum is typically used instead of butt in commonwealth english especially australia and for someone that is completely wrong or lying on all counts why should we take his word for it that bum is not australian?71.142.69.216 06:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This entry is not deleted now. The 1982 citation looks like it might be a mention rather than a use. The 2008 citation looks like it should be "bare-bum," though I don't speak that dialect and cannot make a reliable judgment. The 2010 citation is definitely adjective use.

For an adjective, starting with "having" is an easy way to write some definitions: "having exposed buttocks."

Also, two related words not in Wiktionary are "plumber's butt" and "plumber's cleavage," both citable. (Japanese = 半ケツ.) I believe these are primarily US and that there are different expressions elsewhere in the English-speaking world. --BB12 (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I recalled the term: plumber's bum, not in Wiktionary, either, but easily citable. Probably a number of other words similar to this. --BB12 (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We have plumber's crack and builder's bum. Astral (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The "numerous hits" that Lucifer refers to, on the first page, are non-standard poetry, and discussion of obscure poetical usages like James Joyce. Equinox ◑ 01:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Since when is inclusion in poetry a consideration? I would think it quite the opposite, as any poem by James Joyce is liable to meet the "well known work" standard for inclusion. bd2412 T 20:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What I'm trying to point out is that Lucifer would push this as an everyday, common alternative spelling, while it's actually only in very stylised and unusual writing like poems, where rules are deliberately broken. In other words, it is either misspelling of or requires a strong usage note. Equinox ◑ 20:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem with labeling it as a rare alternate spelling. --BB12 (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I would support a strong usage note, as indicated by Equinox. bd2412 T 16:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete the first noun sense. The only unambiguous usage of this sense of "barebum" I could find on Google Books was in James Joyce's Ulysses. Both the 2008 and 2010 cites are broken with a hyphen and spread across two lines, so it's unclear whether these actually represent "barebum" or "bare-bum." Delete the second noun sense, too, as it only gets one hit. Keep the adjective form. Astral (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep the first noun sense. "Ulysses" counts as a "well-known work." --BB12 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Point of order. Several of the above comments seem to treat this as an RFV question (discussing whether cites are uses or mentions; discussing whether Ulysses is a well-known work). But we're not at WT:RFV, we're at WT:RFD, and the question is not "is this attested?", it's "if this is attested, do we want to keep it?" —Ruakh_TALK 16:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Of course, the discussion should be about issues other than mere attestation.

  I can't really make sense of the definitions in the PoSes given. I would have thought that the basic definition is the SoP noun one of "naked buttocks". I don't think this can be shown to be an adjective. Is RfD or RfV the best place for that?

  I have RfVed the "servant" noun sense.

  I think the wording of the other noun sense was a transparent and unnecessary (IMO) effort to avoid the SoP charge. Do we ever delete English solid-spelled compounds? I think not.

  — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) at 17:26, 27 January 2013‎ (UTC).

closed. Really an RfV question, not sure why it ended up here. -- Liliana • 08:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

---

barebum

Rfv-sense: An impoverished servant.

There is but one cite for this sense. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted the entire noun section as uncited. I also wonder if the citations currently under the adjective section might be scannos or typos. - -sche (discuss) 08:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)