See also Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2011/more. Some terms which had notes on their talk pages linking here have since been moved to there.

March 2011

Victoria's Secret

WT:CFI#Company names says this needs to be attested with a meaning other than the company name. That's more or less impossible. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is for RFD. I would even vote delete, as this company name cannot carry any information that is of lexicographical interest. The section WT:CFI#Company names is an invention of DAVilla. Curiously enough, "Victoria's Secret" entry was created on 16 April 2007 by DAVilla. But I see that the company name just passed RFD on 10 February 2011. --Dan Polansky 08:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...as this company name cannot carry any information that is of lexicographical interest." I suspect that twelve years ago the same would have been easily said about Enron. I agree that at the moment it does not carry any information which is significant to us here, but who knows what the future may bring! - [The]DaveRoss 10:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. When an entry with citations is deleted, why aren't the citations moved to the Citations page?
2. Why was this put in RfV when it had been cited for RfD? DCDuring TALK 14:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I've removed the tag. Feel free to delete it if you believe the citations in the entry do not meet CFI; otherwise, by default, this stays. - -sche (discuss) 05:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]