Talk:mutual friend

RFD discussion: December 2018–February 2019

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.

---

mutual friend

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 15:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete obviously SOP. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• We don't say this in Czech and it is in one OneLook dictionary[1]. I'll see later whether a stronger case can be made for this phrase. Later: Well, maybe we do a bit: google books:"vzájemný přítel", but clicking to the right shows there are only few actual hits, in contrast to google books:"společný přítel". In any case, how is the part "each of whom may not know each other" as sum of parts? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think that the phrase "each of whom may not know each other" makes it less SOP, it doesn't narrow the definition, it just clarifies that whether the referents of mutual know each other is irrelevant to the definition. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  You may have a point in there. In any case, keep per WT:LEMMING: it is in dictionary.cambridge.org and you (Lingo) tell us below it is in Chambers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

IIRC this may have appeared in some older dictionaries (did I spot it in Webster 1913 perhaps?), probably because it was a famous Dickens novel title and also once widely regarded as an erroneous use of mutual. Equinox ◑ 19:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep per lemming, it is in some editions of Chambers. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Definitely keep. Idiomatic and tough to translate. Ƿidsiþ 10:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 15:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)