Talk:@55

RFD discussion: September–October 2021

The following information passed a request for deletion (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.

---

@55

See @$$ — This unsigned comment was added by Nixinova (talk • contribs).

• Move to RFV. DAVilla 03:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• RFD-kept. No rationale for deletion, but it can still be sent to RFV if anyone doubts its existence. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • This shouldn't be closed if the actual discussion above is still ongoing. – Nixinova [‌T|C] 04:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: July 2022–February 2023

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

@55

Per Talk:@55 & Talk:@$$, this should've been sent here ages ago. AG202 (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It's found plenty on the internet^[1] but searching it in Google Groups^[2] is a pain because for some reason it doesn't really recognize the @ in the search query. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Here are some uses of @55: [3], [4], [5], [6]. @$$ is harder to search for, but I found [7], [8], [9].  --Lambiam 19:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

RFV Failed (no quotations on entry) Ioaxxere (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this one can wait, someone needs to add the Usenet quotes. @Lambiam AG202 (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Fine, but keep in mind the limit is supposed to be a single month. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere No, that's the minimum. Mass closures like these are a bad idea, because they tend to mean each nomination hasn't been given due consideration. I am extremely doubtful that you've looked for citations yourself on each one, so it's very probable that you've deleted terms which are probably quite easily citable. Please don't do this. It's much better if the closer has actually attempted to cite the term themselves.

Plus, you've deleted tons of citations which you should have moved to the citations subpages. Theknightwho (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, since this one really is easily citable it is now  cited. In the future, I would prefer people to add quotations to the entry rather than just copy pasting the URLs. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere Going forward, I suggest you don't do any more closures without trying to find citations yourself. This thread is a good example of why that's a bad idea. Theknightwho (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

When an editor, having failed to find citations themselves, lists an entry for verification, one would assume they welcome others searching for citations and will be prepared to add any found.  --Lambiam 19:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hm? I only moved it to RFV because the RFD discussion linked stated to move it to RFV, it was not a case of me failing to find citations. I also would expect the folks that found the cites to add them, not for others to add them. AG202 (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

RFV Passed. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)