Talk:Faucian

RFV discussion: August–September 2021
senses duplicitous, biased etc. No usable cites given, not much on Gbooks (one book, published 2021, only in the title.) – Jberkel 16:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added and cited a more generic, neutral sense from Google News. DCDuring (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the supposed adjective senses 2–4 are all somewhat overlapping. I'm very tempted to delete for suspected bad faith in the addition of those senses, as well as the noun sense. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, it seems like POV pushing and an undue focus on the negative (you could equally create a bunch of definitions of "Faucian" describing its positive uses). I think just limiting it to the "relating/similar to Anthony Fauci" definition is the way to go here. Note that Trumpian doesn't have like 10 definitions, with one being "promoting far-right authoritarianism and climate change denialism" and another being "characteristic of a proud patriot who wants to restore America to its former glory". We don't need the editorializing. 70.175.192.217 18:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since we have a nice, objective procedure for removing uncited or improperly cited content without having to opine on the content, I favor letting RfV run its course. Also, we do have many entries with overlapping definitions and citations that do not unambiguously support any particular definition. DCDuring (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * oh, RFV should totally run its course. I was just saying I was tempted to do that because the creation of the entry smacks of POV-pushing. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * POV-pushing is fine if it comes with good citations, as it so rarely does. DCDuring (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No, the definitions must be written neutrally, to convey only meaning, and not opinion. Since the entry was mainly frothing opinion it was almost worthless as it stood; hence my suggestion to delete (and start fresh). Equinox ◑ 18:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * At least we have indication that the term might be used pejoratively. DCDuring (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Pure propaganda. Might as well speedy it IMO. Equinox ◑ 22:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC
 * If it is unambiguously used in one or more of those senses, it stays, whether or not it is propaganda. DCDuring (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm removing all the contentious and uncited definitions right now. They can be re-added later if enough cites are found for them. In the meantime, it is unacceptable for us to be hosting this kind of slanderous bullshit. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)