Talk:teapotist
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
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.
"A follower of teapotism" (belief in the existence of Russell's teapot, a sort of argument for atheism). In Google Books there is one book mentioning an "a-teapotist", used as an evident nonce word, and that's the opposite of this; but no occurrence of "teapotist" itself. Equinox ◑ 05:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- On Google Scholar I can find enough journal articles using "a-teapotists" that that word would meet CFI, but not this one. (Nothing in the magazines at Issuu, either.) - -sche (discuss) 17:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- There is a sprinkling of use in general Google search (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). My feeling also is that the word is implied by "teapotism" and "a-teapotist", and although I know that argument isn't policy, all in all, I think we should find a way to keep "teapotist". Mihia (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Point people to teapotism (and a-teapotist?), and invite them to compile cites, via
{{no entry}}? - -sche (discuss) 17:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)- I can certainly see cites for teapotist, just not cites that meet our current criteria (with which I find myself continually frustrated). For example, here someone makes the point "In reality there is no point to actually calling oneself an atheist if we reach the enlightened stage of there being no theists, i.e. there are no teapotists that I know of." Kiwima (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- You are right to be frustrated. I wonder, pending CFI wording that can be agreed on, could we have an interim solution whereby we vote on Internet-sourced words, and they can be retained if there is a consensus that they are allowable, and not "crap"? While it would add delay, and add to editors' workload, it might be better than discarding perfectly good entries. Mihia (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- I can certainly see cites for teapotist, just not cites that meet our current criteria (with which I find myself continually frustrated). For example, here someone makes the point "In reality there is no point to actually calling oneself an atheist if we reach the enlightened stage of there being no theists, i.e. there are no teapotists that I know of." Kiwima (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Point people to teapotism (and a-teapotist?), and invite them to compile cites, via
RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)