Talk:deep web

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFV discussion: August 2015–February 2016[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

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

Attributive use, like "tractor" in "tractor parts"; not a true adjective. Not comparable etc. is it? Equinox 14:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be. Purplebackpack89 14:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Zero hits for the term, in quotes, in Google Ngram viewer. (ordinary Google search is not case-sensitive) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
That's weird, cuz when I browse through Google Books, I get a mix of "Deep Web", "deep Web" and "deep web". Purplebackpack89 14:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Google Ngram Viewer stops at the year 2000. So we need to see your hits - presumably later. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, there's your problem...the concept of deep web/Deep Web/deep Web is primarily a post-2000 concept. Purplebackpack89 14:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It's nobody's problem. All you have to do is supply the citations. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
p.s. That 2013 quote is just attributive use of the noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. Purplebackpack89 14:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Google Ngram Viewer goes up to 2008, you just have to set the end date to that (or to a later date). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be comparable, no, but it does have to be adjectival to be an adjective. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
What we have now is two citations that are clearly nominal. Remember any noun can qualify another noun. Literally, any. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Uncited for just under six months, clear fail. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't had two... Purplebackpack89 15:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
2 < 3. DCDuring TALK 15:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, 0 < 3. None of the citations showed adjectival use that could not be construed as attributive use of the noun. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The challenged sense has zero citations, the unchallenged sense had 3. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)