Talk:Fonzie

Citations:Fonzie
This page had been marked for speedy deletion (and even deleted in fact) but I've changed it to RFD. Everyone here knows who Fonzie is and I think a term that everyone knows should be part of a dictionary. (Hopefully some day we can agree to include terms that not everyone knows as well, and then the dictionary would be useful to us and not just unborn generations.) Anyways I don't see what harm a citation does. (It gives support as an out-of-context use, not literally as a unit of measure.) Keep. DAVilla 13:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have much of an opinion on this. However, comparable terms (popular nicknames for specific proper nouns from reality and fiction) might include things like Madge (the singer Madonna in UK tabloids), Jacko (the singer Michael Jackson &mdash; we have this generically for Jackson), Termie (Terminator robot from the film and video game series), and Corrie (the soap opera Coronation Street &mdash; we have this one). Equinox ◑ 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Bizarre that this was deleted; the whole point of creating the Citations: namespace was to have a safe place to accumulate evidence for future entries.  If this was just a collection of random uses of the name "Fonzie", I could see the merits of deletion; but the one quote currently there is clearly relevant to an eventual entry, as any such entry would want to mention the name's use as a byword for coolness. -- Visviva 06:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So what about somebody creating the entry? Having read the citation and the WP article I still only understood what's it meant to mean after reading Visviva's last words. --Duncan 11:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Definite keep. I was going to use the term Fonzie touch as supporting evidence, but have found that it was deleted. It was one of my original entries, and it was definitly cited. How can I contest the deletion.  Do i list it here, or is that a tea room thing.--Dmol 21:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See Requests_for_verification_archive/July_2007. It could always be re-created with citations, but the citations that were in the entry just didn't meet current standards.  I'd be happy to restore it to user-space if you want to continue working on it. -- Visviva 02:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please recreate and I'll have another look at it. Thanks.--Dmol 05:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fonzie touch recreated with new cites. --Dmol 08:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kept. DAVilla 02:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. So what about now somebody creating the entry? A citations page for a word which doesn't have one looks... well choose your own epithet, anybody who cares. --Duncan 08:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is as it should be: term probably doesn't yet meet WT:CFI. The single quote may help. Ergo, citations page, but no entry. DCDuring TALK 10:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. So each time I meet some neologism I like but can't cite I'm allowed to create a Citations page for it and just wait until I (or somebody else) come across two citations more? Good to know... --Duncan 13:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)