Talk:JBiebs

RFD
For a deletion discussion, see Talk:RPattz. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

RFV discussion: April 2018
I ask that this be restored. It was deleted via RFD now archived at Talk:RPattz. The only pro-deletion comment concerning JBiebs is "Cannot find any clause or section of CFI which might justify this entry." The term seems attested, and is governed by WT:NSE. Consistent with Talk:RPattz and the results of Talk:J-Lo, this should be kept. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Suggest collecting some citations on the citation page for verification first. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Restore if attested. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Moved this discussion to RFV. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What exactly are we supposed to be looking for here? Obviously there are lots of sources out there that use "JBiebs", but all of them that I see refer to a specific person (Justin Bieber). As I understand it, that does not meet WT:NSE. Kiwima (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * . — SGconlaw (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WT:NSE says "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney." It does not say anything about names of specific people like Cher and JBiebs, that do not include "both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." I don't see anything about names of specific people, and the sentence I quoted implicitly approves of individual people being listed as senses on entries that don't include both a given name and a family name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * While that meets the letter of the law, it goes against the spirit of the rule. Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No; if the spirit of the rule was that "no individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry", then there would be absolutely no reason to keep on going. In fact, the general interpretation of the spirit of rules like that is that you can do the things it doesn't specifically exclude; "no parking on Wednesday" means you can park on Tuesday.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's find two more citations like the one that's on the citations page (maybe Issuu has some? everything else on GBooks is mentiony), to demonstrate that it doesn't just fail the "three uses" part of CFI. After that, we can wrangle over whether NSE bans it (maybe not), mandates inclusion of it (apparently not), or leaves it to our discretion, and hence over whether or not we want to include it... - -sche (discuss) 01:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. It is cited Kiwima (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. OK, so please discuss whether it should be undeleted as satisfying WT:NSE. (Note that exists.) — SGconlaw (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Undelete: this has lots of precedent, with entries like J-Lo and A-Rod. Khemehekis (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * : is this a vote to undelete? If so, please indicate that. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The attesting quotations are at Citations:JBiebs. Let's move it back to RFD where I opened the discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * RFV passed: see Citations:JBiebs. Let us continue the discussion at WT:RFDE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April–May 2018
I ask that this be restored. It was deleted via RFD now archived at Talk:RPattz. The only pro-deletion comment concerning JBiebs is "Cannot find any clause or section of CFI which might justify this entry." The term seems attested, and is governed by WT:NSE. Consistent with Talk:RPattz and the results of Talk:J-Lo, this should be kept. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Suggest collecting some citations on the citation page for verification first. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Restore if attested. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Moved this discussion to RFV. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Unstriking: Let's finish the discussion here in RFD, now that we have attesting quotations at Citations:JBiebs; we will need more votes combined with comments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Restore. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Restore. I hadn't even seen Talk:J-Lo when I commented that J-Lo and A-Rod (and K-Fed, which we don't yet have) provide precedent for JBiebs. Khemehekis (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Also, I should note that this is written as a solid word. We keep solid words as long as they meet the attestation criteria. In fact, WP:COALMINE is predicated on our keeping of solid words. Khemehekis (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Undeleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)