Talk:surrogatum principle

Request for verification

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.

---

I have made this entry and cited it, but am unsure about two of the three citations. I could not find more. It may be that the citations should be used to support surrogatum in its disputed Canadian tax sense, which got pushed in June, without yielding acceptable citations. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#surrogatum above. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - check the Wikipedia article, there are plenty of citations and court cases in which surrogatum principle is used [1]. WritersCramp 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. (I agree with DCDuring that the existing cites aren't quite enough. WritersCramp's comment seems to be saying that the surrogatum principle is commonly used, which is really not the same as saying that the term surrogatum principle is commonly used.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)