Talk:FaCIAbook
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.
Equinox ◑ 19:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- There are around 250 hits for FaCIAbook on Twitter, the first one being this Spanish language tweet from 2009 [1] and around 40 FaceBook posts that use the term. There are also 2 archived podcasts by MediaMonarchy that allegedly use the term on archive.org, though I haven’t listened to them to check this yet - I think it should be included (it reminds me of al-CIAda). There are also about 15 Reddit hits and 223 Google Images search results for the ‘FaCIAbook’ meme [2]Overlordnat1. In fact there are 465,000,000 Google hits, though I’m sure many of these will be false positives. (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- it most certainly should be included, considering Facebook's long and blemished record of spying on its users and selling their data 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:1C7B:15E7:1371:3439 00:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- and I forgot to add, its incessant Orwellian censoring of free speech 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:8467:464E:4B6E:9C37 00:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- it most certainly should be included, considering Facebook's long and blemished record of spying on its users and selling their data 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:1C7B:15E7:1371:3439 00:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
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.
This has failed before, and no citations have been added, so it could probably be deleted immediately. However, now that the CFI has been updated to allow for online sources, this term could potentially be cited using Twitter and various other websites, provided that the community agrees with it (compare dorcassing, sniddy). 70.172.194.25 07:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- I, for one, agree with that. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, I have added a bunch of cites to the citations page. Does anyone know how we go about voting whether they are acceptable? Kiwima (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
{{look}}
I have created a vote for accepting the citations here Kiwima (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think blogs should be valid cites, as that opens the door for all manner of garbage. - TheDaveRoss 13:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- This did not pass. The provided cites were voted on and that vote failed. Deleting as RFV Failed. - TheDaveRoss 13:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)