Talk:Care Bears

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 11 years ago by DAVilla in topic RFD discussion (2)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFD discussion (1)

[edit]

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.


--Connel MacKenzie 18:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply


RFD discussion (2)

[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.


"A franchise of greeting cards and multiple derivative works of fiction starring Care Bears." Not dictionary material surely, also not a single word; why have this but not Kentucky Fried Chicken for example? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Leasnam (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Delete. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Why not RfV it under WT:BRAND. Slower, but less likely to lead to erroneous exclusion or excess gum-flapping here. DCDuring TALK 21:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Delete (but note non-brand video gaming term carebear). Equinox 23:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
RFV would not address two specific CFI issues. Not a word in a language (line 1) not idiomatic (line 3, with the text size I use). Why bother citing it for it to fail RFD at a later date? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
1) I suppose World War II is not a term in a language either? This entry is most certainly English, and it is most certainly composed of words. If your claim is otherwise then it brings not only that point but your entire line of reasoning into question. The very absurdity of the statement gets under my skin.
2) "Idiomatic" is to be interpreted in a broad sense, and we have clearly established rules for terms exactly like this to determine if they are worthy of inclusion. If you do not agree with those rules, then you are entitled to your opinion, but at least acknowledge as much in RFD instead of pretending that you are at liberty to entirely ignore them. DAVilla 10:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Deleted as it probably wouldn't pass RFV. DAVilla 06:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply