Talk:Oozlefinch

Oozlefinch
A mascot of a branch of the US army. I doubt this meets CFI --Volants 15:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, no usable content here. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks usable and citable to me.
 * Or does inclusion or exclusion just become a matter of voting against unfamiliar terms or terms used by unpopular people or institutions and for corresponding terms favored by those few who participate in this process? Rule of "law" or mere subjective opinion? See google books for prima facie, readily available (ie, nom or seconder could have found it in seconds) evidence of availability of citations. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right! Thank you! But as the name of a specific character, it needs attributive-use cites (which I suspect is what Volants meant). Move to RFV. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 16:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have noted that favored proper nouns are regularly exempted from the application of the dead-letter WT:CFI. If WT:CFI is to be selectively ignored and not amended, why not totally ignore it? Because it is from an unpopular current subculture rather than one of those favored by some?
 * Whether or not CFI applies, but if practice/precedent does, why should this one be any different from Zeus, Odin, Thor, Confucius, Yahweh, et al (just pulling a few out of -- the air)?
 * And, having recourse to the last refuge of scoundrels, I invoke our slogan: "All words in all languages". DCDuring TALK 20:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I advocate ignoring CFI. Because of our overly bureaucratic rules, CFI cannot be updated. Not that bucket, spade and child do not meet CFI because they are not idiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (unindent) Again, "bucket" is idiomatic per CFI: "An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." The full meaning of "bucket" cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components, as it has not separate components.
 * We do not have too bureaucratic rules for modification of CFI; our voting rules prevent wanna-be regulators from complicating CFI even further, and from putting things in there that do not have and never had anything like a community consesus support. --Dan Polansky 06:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Volants is Wonderfool. I know of no regulation of CFI that this term violates. It is attestable. Considering it outside of CFI, it would even have pronunciation and some etymology at a later point. The attributive-use rule has been voted down: Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities. --Dan Polansky 06:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kept for no consensus to delete.--Jusjih 03:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion: December 2007–December 2010
--Connel MacKenzie 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleaner. Would probably meet RfV, IMHO. DCDuring 23:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sent to WT:RFD --Volants 15:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clean. Struck. RFD is a separate matter. — Beobach 05:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)