Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.
- It came from Webster 1913, and we tend to leave those entries alone. In any case, if a writer prefers to insert a hyphen it doesn't suddenly make it SoP, it was a sum of parts as a compound word. A lot of users don't seem to work that one out. DonnanZ (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Just because it came from Webster 1913 does not make it valid. In any case, I added three cites with no hyphen, so it should be a pretty solid compound now. Kiwima (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as it looks sufficiently cited. As for whether to create a noun section, I think we need further quotations to see if it is used as a noun. The 1879 citation could be using it in an adjectival sense. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- This is an RfV question, not one for RfD. It is obvious that if the word can be cited, it should be kept. bd2412 T 03:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- RFD closed as out of scope; if in doubt, RFV can be created. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)