This is a discussion archive created in December 2006, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion, or the archives index.

This is an archive of discussions started in December 2006.

Kept

Double Jeopardy

Double Jeopardy!

Discussion archived at Talk:Double Jeopardy. bd2412 T 23:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

peacenik

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:peacenik. bd2412 T 15:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

technological unemployment

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:technological unemployment. bd2412 T 15:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monkey's uncle

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:monkey's uncle. bd2412 T 15:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

uçağın

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:uçağın. bd2412 T 15:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

transexual

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:transexual. bd2412 T 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilartikel

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:Nihilartikel. bd2412 T 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

title

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:title. bd2412 T 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobie

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobie. bd2412 T 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

interferant

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:interferant. bd2412 T 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

corporate monster

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:corporate monster. bd2412 T 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nihilartikel

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:nihilartikel. bd2412 T 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:Zelda. bd2412 T 15:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

frequency

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:frequency. bd2412 T 15:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

microsporogenesis

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:microsporogenesis. bd2412 T 15:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

snow train

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:snow train. bd2412 T 15:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fuckknuckle

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:fuckknuckle. bd2412 T 15:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SNES

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:SNES. bd2412 T 16:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Nintendo

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:Super Nintendo. bd2412 T 16:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:Yoshi. bd2412 T 16:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Τὸ

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:Τὸ. bd2412 T 16:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Stones

Kept, discussion moved to Talk:Rolling Stones. bd2412 T 16:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

hrothi-

Belongs in the Appendix namespace, somewhere, right? --Connel MacKenzie 02:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headword does not match title. I would just delete it. SemperBlotto 16:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be okay. It uses hrothi- for *hrōði- in the same way we write Latin or Old English god for gōd, because people actually write these words without the diacritics and special letters. And this stem actually does mean fame, and it is found only in a few proper names such as Roger, Roderick, and Rudolph. We place PIE roots in the Appendix namespace, so that would go for Proto-Germanic roots as well. —Stephen 19:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Appendix:Proto-Germanic root hrothi-. —Stephen 02:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

depletist

Two-month-old word coined by a high school class, which has since been active in trying to popularize it. Wikipedia article under AfD for same basis (neologism/protologism). 147.70.244.102 16:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. It's in the list of protologisms already, where it belongs. Kappa 17:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Famicom

--Connel MacKenzie 09:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, like Coca-Cola. Kappa 15:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Again, this belongs on Wikipedia. We don't need it here. Neskaya 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasons as SNES, Super Nintendo. ArielGlenn 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --Williamsayers79 16:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn've

Not a "common" misspelling - just an error. --Connel MacKenzie 04:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very real, quite common in speech. Pretty easy to cite it anyone cares to. Often used in dialogue in fiction to represent the spoken contraction, which is common. (use it often meself ;-) Reasonable to say it is non-standard, which it does. Robert Ullmann 05:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks good to me (I use it, too). Also, I've seen wouldn't've, which is just another way of spelling the entry in question here. — V-ball 13:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very common in speech, but still spelled "wouldn't have" or, at a push, "wouldn't've". — Paul G 15:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, along with "couldn've" and "wouldn've". Two curious things: I made two of these pages (based on Vladisdead's creation of the other); the more acceptable "shouldn't've" was a redirect to "shouldn've". — Paul G 15:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this deleted? It gets 134 Google Books hits. --Ptcamn 21:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

porneia

Bogus redirect? (Unsure of Greek rules, but languages that do allow transcriptions on en.wiktionary do not allow redirects, for them.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For both Modern and Ancient Greek, I'm fairly certain that in practice Romanization does not receive its own page; I thus think that the redirect likewise oughn't be around. Medellia 17:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted SemperBlotto 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

monolateralists

Meaning, monolatrist, perhaps? --Connel MacKenzie 19:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. one who believes in monolatrism. Delete. If such a term existed, I suspect I'd have already done the entry by now (or at least have fitted it into the appendix). bd2412 T 19:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted ages ago. --Connel MacKenzie 19:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

punkrockedness

I doubt this will stand up to scrutiny. --Dmol 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might get bored and rewrite it though. Weak delete. --Connel MacKenzie 23:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 22:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order 66

--Connel MacKenzie 01:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to verify the second definition. Google hits appear to be coincidences (aside from the like descriptions, not uses), and other sources yield nothing. The topic of the first definition is encyclopedic in nature. Delete. DAVilla 10:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second definition was also given at Wikipedia. The first definition is no more than semi-encyclopedic. Keep. Tedius Zanarukando 08:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be wiling to keep if it is used out of context, that is, either not meaning that Star Wars sense (as per the unverified second def.) or perhaps meaning the Star Wars sense but in a more general context, without even mentioning Star Wars. Otherwise it is an encyclopedic topic. DAVilla 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Connel MacKenzie 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Three months on and there are no durably archived instances of any non-encyclopedic meaning. All non-Star Wars references are to something like a congressional "Order 66" which appears to be no more significant that Order 65 and Order 67, or instruction that someone was to order 66 of something, or the like. None connect the term to layoffs. The few Google hits that reference "Order 66" as a euphamism for layoffs also happen to mention that this is according to Wikipedia, so it seems that someone is trying to use the wikis to manufacture a meaning. Not our job. bd2412 T 15:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shotacon

Tagged by Ec a while ago, not listed here. --Connel MacKenzie 19:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Wikipedia thinks this exists, similar to lolicon. These words may not have entered mainstream English, but among anime aficionados (I'm married to one!), they're quite common. Google has 32,400 hits for this term. I'd say keep and remove the tag. —Dvortygirl 21:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. On such a ridiculous term, citations make or break it. Perhaps that's why this can't be found in any other dictionary. --Connel MacKenzie 16:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was passed last month. See talk page of the article. — This comment was unsigned.

Apparently it was an invalid "pass" as there are no citations. --Connel MacKenzie 16:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doublechecking the talk page, it seems the unsigned comment was just a blatant lie. --Connel MacKenzie 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was in fact brought up on RFV before, by EC. I would have to agree that passing would have been invalid, or at least a moderator's judgement call, as Andrew feels he has to make on occasion, much like speedy deletion is a judgement call. DAVilla 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 63 600 hits for the term out there. no book hits, but the vast majority of the hits do not relate to wiki at all. they mostly seem to be links to various porn sites. However, if creampie, lolicon etc have pasased, my inclination is to pass it. I will send to rfd for a decision. Andrew massyn 06:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, since this is now a !vote on RFD: Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 22:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFV error corrected, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 19:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambot

Def =a very keen Amway person. portmanteau of Amway and robot.

Hm? -- Beobach972 20:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good bit of support for this. Searching for Ambot + Amway finds about 1000 on websites and about 200 on newsgroups.

in the wild pursuit of this goal, the hapless AmBot spends huge amounts of time and money on Amway functions and materials.
(several uses on the same page, I have quoted two different articles).
What's the best way to corner an Ambot when they start touting false figures? [1]
I looked back at my time in the business and I could see how I evolved into an ambot. [2]
I came across the expression Ambot, now that I know what it mean, I thought it could be fun to make a small award called the; Ambot Oscar [3]
... No, it seems that you and the rest of the Ambots have your Amway blinders on to the truth again, [4]
--Dmol 11:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It is too specific to a company and large though Amway is, I think this differs from microserf or macjob which can be universally understood. Rfvfailed. PS if you feel really aggrieved, talk to me. Andrew massyn 17:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Andrew massyn 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Where do these arbitrary merits that you're raising in objection to this cited word originate? This should be RFV passed and then RFD'd if you think it doesn't deserve inclusion. DAVilla 07:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? The "words used only in a narrow context" line is in CFI for terms precisely like this; nonsense jargon that can't be used outside of a rare situation. What would the tag for it, if kept, be? Anti-Amway-pejorative-jargon? The request for deletion is perfectly reasonable as a request for deletion, not as a request for verification. My opinion is that the entry should be deleted. It serves only as some one's soapbox for their dissatisfaction...which is not what Wiktionary is here for. --Connel MacKenzie 07:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise, I agree. Generally I dislike the "words used only in a narrow context" line as being likely to eliminate technical jargon which, although only used in a narrow field is essential within that field and often has a very precise definition. However, this word has neither of those attributes. Delete. --Enginear 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Andrew massyn 07:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Keep. DAVilla 10:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted ages ago. --Connel MacKenzie 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

telasynectics

Exactly one Google hit.. not this meaning. --Versageek 01:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted ages ago. --Connel MacKenzie 19:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Entertainment System

--Connel MacKenzie 08:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated with the rationale that the Nintendo Entertainment System is well-honored and that it appeared as a featured article in Wikipedia. I object to Connel MacKenzie's requests for deletion. Tedius Zanarukando 07:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are unable to comprehend Wiktionary's critieria? As an admin, I can delete it with no explanation. It is a gesture of kindness to tell you (in the deletion log) why it was deleted, not a requirement. It is a tremendous gesture of kindness to "request" deletion instead of immediately deleting it. Go check the deletion log...I wasn't the one who deleted it, but I shall delete it now, as it has been resubmitted without citations. --Connel MacKenzie 07:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted (but see my comment at Gameboy below). bd2412 T 13:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted ages ago. --Connel MacKenzie 19:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

--Connel MacKenzie 08:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated with the rationale that the Super Nintendo Entertainment System is well-honored and that many consider it the "last great console ever." Tedius Zanarukando 07:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating deleted nonsense without print citations? You do realize you are very likely going to be blocked for that, right? If you check the deletion log, you'll see that it was not I who deleted it, and if you look closely enough, you'll see the justification was "encyclopedic" because, of course, it is. --Connel MacKenzie 07:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Special:Whatlinkshere/... --Connel MacKenzie 09:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted (but see my comment at Gameboy below). bd2412 T 13:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted ages ago. --Connel MacKenzie 19:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo 64

Probably the dozen related terms as well. --Connel MacKenzie 08:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted (but see my comment at Gameboy below). bd2412 T 13:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted ages ago. --Connel MacKenzie 19:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony PlayStation

--Connel MacKenzie 08:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted (but see my comment at Gameboy below). bd2412 T 13:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted ages ago. --Connel MacKenzie 19:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo GameCube

--Connel MacKenzie 08:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted (but see my comment at Gameboy below). bd2412 T 13:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted ages ago. --Connel MacKenzie 19:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony PlayStation 2

--Connel MacKenzie 08:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted (but see my comment at Gameboy above). bd2412 T 13:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted ages ago. --Connel MacKenzie 19:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*men-

Including men#Proto-Indo-European and other "Proto-Indo-European" entries: *h₁eḱwo-, *ped-, *peḱ-, and a number of redirects.

Fails CFI on two major counts: not cited or citable. (Keep in mind: Egyptian hieroglyphs, cuneiform, Linear B, etc are all citeable) And not in accepted list of languages. (PIE is at best conjectural, at worst possibly/probably nonsense.)

We had previously settled that these should be in appendices, but they are sneaking into the main namespace. They also have non-standard headers and format, perhaps appropriate to the Appendix entries. (See Category:Proto-Indo-European roots) Robert Ullmann 13:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Appendix:Proto-Indo-European root *men- (etc.,) then delete residual redirects from main namespace. --Connel MacKenzie 16:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (edit) 16:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who thinks PIE is probably nonsense? Certainly not other dictionaries, or linguists. Historical linguistics is a pretty exact science, and Indo-European is the best-studied language family. --Ptcamn 12:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep of course. PIE dictionaries have perfect notability, plus they are dictionaries, hence there is nothing to prevent coverage on wiktionary. Wiktionary does no linguistic field research: "citeable" means "citeable to notable dictionaries", Pokorny (1959) is a perfectly notable dictionary, and the entry in question does contain a direct link to the Pokorny entry. Discussion on presentation of reconstructed material goes on Wiktionary talk:Reconstructed terms, discussion of PIE-specific points on Wiktionary:About Proto-Indo-European, neither discussion belongs on rfd. Dbachmann 15:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...our WT:CFI specifically excludes other dictionaries as cites (as failing use/mention distinction?) I have no opinion on the merits of PIE roots for inclusion, but unless the term is used (as opposed to just being defined) in the mentioned text, it is not citable per our guidelines. --Jeffqyzt 16:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Dbachmann continued moving these into main namespace after adding this comment. He(?) is a valuable contributor, I do not understand why he would continue knowing that is has been raised as an issue here. Robert Ullmann 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply: appearance in a dictionary (however respected) is a reference, not use. Citations are use. If and when you can provide 3 print citations of the use of this term by a native speaker, then it will meet CFI. Note well: even things like cuneiform signs meet this CFI requirement! (accepting incised clay tablets as print ;-). PIE is conjecture; it cannot possibly meet CFI. It is welcome in the Appendicies, wehere it has been, and belongs. Robert Ullmann 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a cite for *h₁eḱwo- (in the accusative plural form, using an archaic spelling):

1868: August Schleicher, Avis akvasas ka
Avis, jasmin varnā na ā ast, dadarka akvams, tam, vāgham garum vaghantam, tam, bhāram magham, tam manum āku bharantam.

Of course, August Schleicher is not a native speaker, but I don't think that should be a requirement. Otherwise, a large amount of late Latin vocabulary (for example) becomes uncitable. --Ptcamn 16:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But his text (never mind is says akvams) is a "reconstuction", as part of PIE research (or whatever). It is not in any conceivable sense use. Show me a laundry receipt with the word on it ...

It's not a "reconstruction" of anything. It's an original text. --Ptcamn 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a citation: 𒀭 (DINGIR), "27./28. The fire-arrow-Sagittarius PA.BIL.SAG, ZA.BA4.BA4 and the sitting gods DINGIR.TUSH.A.MESH [stinger of Scorpio] rise and the Lance KAK.SI.SA [Alphard to Monoceros], the Bow BAN [nu-Hydra] and the Crooked Staff GAM [Camelopardalis] set.", MUL.APIN 5, Tablet 86378, British Museum Robert Ullmann 16:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reference, not a use. This is an English text mentioning cuneiform words, not a cuneiform text. --Ptcamn 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello? this is a valid content (or policy) dispute. What is it doing on rfd? Take it to the proper fora. Dbachmann 21:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Appendix:Proto-Indo-European root *men-. —Stephen 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted bad redirects, kept appendix entries. --Connel MacKenzie 22:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soka University World Language Center

Used attributively? Transwiki to WP? --Connel MacKenzie 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler just to delete it. SemperBlotto 10:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

partial proletarianization

Moved from WT:RFV. DAVilla 07:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like a set phrase to me. Kappa 19:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn’t it be spelt partial proleteriatisation even if it did exist? Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Google, but hey, I don't make the rules (that is if there even are any)! DAVilla 19:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could it mean half-mannered? Also scores well as per the prior knowledge test. Keep. DAVilla 07:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the prior knowledge test? You mean prior knowledge is a set phrase, which I agree with, but what test do both of these things pass? Kappa 17:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The (proposed) test question is, does the term have a specific technical meaning in a certain field? Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion#Tests for multiple-word entries DAVilla 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted long ago. --Connel MacKenzie 22:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMVII

Jonathan Webley 12:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has already zapped it. --Jeffqyzt 16:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce lee vs jackie chan

This entry is a vandalism — This comment was unsigned.

It's gone now, thanks. Kappa 05:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

el-noun-n-ι-a

Created in error (should have been a template) —— Saltmarsh 15:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can just use {{delete}} for things like this, it doesn't need the RfD process. Robert Ullmann 15:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Xbox

Xbox Live

Nintendo DS

Microsoft Xbox 360

More trademarked names of video game products - which don't meet CFI, as they have no idiomatic meaning. This is the type of stuff that Wikipedia is for.. --Versageek 22:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, sum-of-parts. Gone. DAVilla 10:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Queen

Used attributively in this sense? --Connel MacKenzie 21:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted ages ago. --Connel MacKenzie 23:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowy

Famous dog? Used attributively??? --Connel MacKenzie 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted ages ago. --Connel MacKenzie 23:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milou

--Connel MacKenzie 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted ages ago. --Connel MacKenzie 23:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

horcrux

obviously tosh, right?

but it has 1/4 million hits, essentially all use with this definition. not so easy. Robert Ullmann 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote keep on this one, as it has been in print spanning more than a year in many places, albeit by one author. sewnmouthsecret 00:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we always delete Harry Potter-related stuff? — V-ball 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted ages ago, fails independence. --Connel MacKenzie 23:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Spiritual Aestheticism

Might make a decent encyclopedia topic, if given enough cleanup. --Connel MacKenzie 19:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it fits in well, in the context of more-established articles. I say let's clean it up a little, rather than delete it

We should tie Bloom into it more, and put Herbert's "New Spiritual" Aestheticism in more of a proper sub-catecorical role. -- User: Leon Katz 28 December 2006

User:SemperBlotto deleted this term giving the reasons "encyclopedic - wrong capitalization". Words that are incorrectly capitalized are moved, not deleted. Entries that are encyclopedic in length are trimmed, not deleted. Entries that are of an encyclopedic subject are put to RFD. SB also failed to comment here that the page was deleted, although it was clearly marked RFD. Therefore I have restored this entry. DAVilla 18:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have the feeling this is unsalvageable, both for wikipedia and for here, but I've taken it to Requests for verification. Kappa 19:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I think it might fail on that basis pretty easily. However, if it turns out to be a real term it should probably exist in some form here, as well as the transwiki to 'pedia. DAVilla 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have deleted it, rather than tagged it for deletion, from the start. My apologies. --Connel MacKenzie 00:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tongue-in-cheek apology accepted. I should be the one to apologize for not having googled it before restoring. In fact I had done that before, when it first came up, and completely forgotten about the results. DAVilla 15:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fgsfds

Has this gained common understanding in the English language? Or still limited to 'leet'? --Connel MacKenzie 04:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 10700 google hits out there! I checked several of the postings, which are mostly blog sites and found it put on pictures and talked about all over the place. It seems to have the meaning stated. I have put an alternative etymology on the page derived from one of the sites I visited. Rfvpassed much to my surprise. I am not qualified to say if it is out of leetspeak and am moving this page to rfd for further discussion. Andrew massyn 08:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, do we need both this and asdf (see above)? —scs 16:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be funny if all the nonsense entries we get could be pegged to a single popular blog? --Connel MacKenzie 06:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this. The entry even says, "Very rarely used in speech, "fgsfds" is a word used on the internet, speciafically the website 4chan. No other forum user is likely to understand it, even though it is intentionally incomprehensible." In other words, no one else know what this is. This entry should go. The same goes for fhqwhgads. --Dictionary Geek 00:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; this is the only place I could find the definition of this word. — This comment was unsigned.

Delete. Wiktionary promoting more nonsense as if a real term. Great. --Connel MacKenzie 21:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to delete, no support to keep. Relisting at end of December. --Connel MacKenzie 22:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for deleting this. — V-ball 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Clearly in use. Probably would be difficult to source though. DAVilla 15:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete The entry strongly asserts that it fails independence. If this is true, it's out. If it's "escaped the lab" and people are using it outside 4chan or whatever — regardless of whether they use it the same way as 4chan — then it's worth an entry. -dmh 05:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I find the article hilarious, it's a complete neologism. It's properly defined on UD, probably doens't require more than that. ((oops, no sig)) // 68.100.5.79 13:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move this into the list of internet slang, if anything. — This comment was unsigned.

OK, move to WT:LOP and delete? --Connel MacKenzie 18:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I just tried in vain to understand what fgsfds meant until I stumbled upon the wiktionary entry. Don't delete it because it actually is needed! I am a livievidence of it. What shall all other people after it has been deleted do to find out what the meaning of this acronym is? Lordmetroid 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what WT:LOP is for. --Connel MacKenzie 15:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Honestly, what purpose does deleting any word added to wikipedia have other than to stroke the sadly technical based egos of an attention starved minority of users? The word meant something, to someone, once upon a time and if for no other reason should be kept for lexical prosperity. STFU n00bs!

Hoo yee, this is not wikipedia! Anyway it is now deleted because it is tosh and there have no sensible arguments to keep it either.--Williamsayers79 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch mate, now I will never re-findout what the abbrevation meant! Lordmetroid 17:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's total nonsense, so does not merit inclusion here.--Williamsayers79 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted again... \Mike 13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]