Talk:Back to the Future Day

RFV discussion: October 2015–January 2016
Meaning: "October 21, 2015." Really?

BTW, I've found a couple of random single-use alternative meanings:
 * 1) A day to celebrate past accomplishments.
 * 2) A day to relive 1955 life.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Today is the day that they jumped forward to in the film. I don't think it deserves a dictionary entry though. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * is there any policy or guideline to support deletion of this? I doubt it. Pur ple back pack 89   13:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * See . I think that it’s okay to keep as a neologism or hot word. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 13:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there are citations for it for 2014 and before. Consider this Google search set between January 1, 1985 and October 21, 2014. Pur ple back pack 89   13:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) I had deleted it as a Wonderfoolism. I can get it back if you think we need it. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Bad move to delete something in the middle of a discussion. I think you should recreate it and instead nominate it for deletion.  The CFI basis for deleting it is weak, particularly since there's not much in CFI about holidays and observances.  Also, being created by Wonderfool is not in and of itself a reason for deletion.Pur ple back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   13:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I hate to agree with Purplebackpack, but yes, I think that speedying it was a bad idea. This locution is definitely used by quite a few people. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 13:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Restored. Would you like to give it a decent dictionary definition? SemperBlotto (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything particularly wrong with the current definition; if I was changing it, I'd just move some of the words around in the current definition. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  13:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I edited the definition. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It could go to RFD though, since we don't have black cat appreciation day, world cat day and so on. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * RFV-passed as a hot word. I can see it potentially passing RFV if we check up on it in a year. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: August 2017
Seems to have generated very short-lived buzz.__Gamren (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah. WF created that page years ago. He's not gonna add 3 cites any time soon. --WF on Holiday (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

He may not, but there are sufficient cites on that page, and covering a timespan of three years. This one is cited. Kiwima (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Three years? It's a span of less than a year and a half (October 2015 to February 2017). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/06/not-back-to-the-future-day-yet/ is essentially talking about the same thing, isn't it? That's 7 years ago. W3ird N3rd (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it is longer than the one year required. RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)