Talk:bacne
Add topicLatest comment: 19 years ago by Dmh in topic From rfd
From rfd
[edit]A look at print.google.com did not show anything even close to this. --Connel MacKenzie 17:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why there is a difference but www.google.co.uk has 4,680 hits. A few interesting ones from the first page of results: Acne Resource Center wikiHow About Inc. Cosmetic Connection
- -- Nick1nildram 17:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Why do you use "print".google.com? Is that something special? My regular google search (none of this "uk" stuff) also turned up 4680 hits, but WebMD came up blank. But I had never heard of it before. Certainly Acne Resource didn't use it in an informal sense of the word. Given the uncertainty, I'd delete. --Stranger 21:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- http://print.google.com/ is special in that it limits the search to published books that google has indexed. The "special" part is that the WS:CFI was hotly contested earlier this year, when a change was attempted, to include all internet resources (such as blogs and instant messaging logs) as opposed to "reputable" sources the earlier version advocated. Someone (I forget who) posted a print.google.com search and the meme caught on. Apparently it is an acceptable compromise, even if never officially condoned. --Connel MacKenzie 02:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Personally, I never saw the original phrasing as excluding blogs etc. I will agree that print.google.com is a Good Thing, and that print hits are nice to have. But on the one hand, print hits still have to be vetted just like anything else, and on the other hand, plain google hits are essential when a term hasn't yet made it into the print index. -dmh 21:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- http://print.google.com/ is special in that it limits the search to published books that google has indexed. The "special" part is that the WS:CFI was hotly contested earlier this year, when a change was attempted, to include all internet resources (such as blogs and instant messaging logs) as opposed to "reputable" sources the earlier version advocated. Someone (I forget who) posted a print.google.com search and the meme caught on. Apparently it is an acceptable compromise, even if never officially condoned. --Connel MacKenzie 02:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This appears to be some kind of commercial promotion. Eclecticology 04:23:13, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
- Oh for goodness' sake, there are 4,650 hits on Google. This is a well-established term, even if slang. I am sure I have heard it used in a discussion on TV. Keep, removing any advertisement that might be there. — Paul G 09:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, keep. My invisible friend said he knew what it was, regretably, the instant I... er... he saw the word.
- It may be unpleasant, but it is a word. What kind of slang should be accepted? Ads not withstanding, there should be an entry for it if slang of that type and popularity is acceptable. -Daniel B
- Oh for goodness' sake, there are 4,650 hits on Google. This is a well-established term, even if slang. I am sure I have heard it used in a discussion on TV. Keep, removing any advertisement that might be there. — Paul G 09:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)