Talk:Beachcomber

Beachcomber
Needs to meet our "Names of specific entities" nonrule AFAICT. Delete: nothing here of use that's not in [[beachcomber]]. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to oppose a lot less strongly terms that refer to individuals when they're only one word. In one way just to be less of an outlier on this subject, but also they can have linguistic merit. I'm not keen on this one, but I'd struggle to come up with a really good argument to delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Take to RFV If there are cites along the lines of "Beachcomber today writes" without an explicit context like "in his Daily Express column", it seems like a weak keep. If it's always qualified - i.e., if it's always obvious from context that Beachcomber is a Daily Express columnist" - delete. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds good. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's an author's pseudonym, like Araucaria for the cryptic crossword setter, or Voltaire (which we have, but I disagree with; encyclopaedic and non-lexicographical). "Beachcomber writes..." doesn't seem to mandate an entry. Equinox ◑ 01:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This just the nickname of a specific person; everything lexically significant about the term is at the lowercase title. bd2412 T 19:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Name of a specific person, but without any redeeming attributive use. --Dmol (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)