Talk:Fabs

RFV discussion
Just found this while updating some templates. I wasn't sure to rfd, rfv or rfc it, so I brought it here. Which of our criteria does this meet, if any? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * None - it should be the Fab Four. SemperBlotto
 * If one does, the other probably does too, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cited. Equinox ◑ 15:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hang on, I'd compare it to Spidey, an informal nickname for a specific entry. Do these entries meet our criteria simply by being attestable? If yes, great, no complaints from me. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of the recent Requests_for_deletion; similar terms include Ab Fab:, Apop:, Mickey D:, and Codies:. However, since this has been brought to RFV, it only needs attestation, and I've shown that it is actually used. Equinox ◑ 15:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Recommend keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Cited and kept. Anyone objecting to its inclusion, rather than its attestability, should open a new RFD. Equinox ◑ 17:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)