Talk:homoflexibility

@-sche: The RFV discussion, which will soon be archived here, is of interest to you, I think. This is a word with only two cites we could find, but a strong likelihood of being citable in the near future, if someone keeps a watch on it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact, I think I've managed to find a third citation (from a journal, via Google Scholar). - -sche (discuss) 18:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, did that turn up since the last comment at the RFV? In any case, thank you for that. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems to have been published late last month (December 17th). - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: August 2015–January 2016

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.

---

homoflexibility

One use in Google Books, three mentions in GB, Google Scholar and Usenet. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

True, plenty of hits on Google News for homoflexible, but none for homoflexibility. — This unsigned comment was added by 222.153.17.57 (talk).

• Nothing more has turned up in the intervening time, so this is RFV failed. But I expect it'll catch on eventually. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for altering me (on the talk page) to this. Via Google Scholar I manage to find a third citation. There's also an iffy citation on Usenet in soc.motss. (So, this has been recreated with citations / it passes.) - -sche (discuss) 18:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)