Talk:Urban Dictionary

Urban Dictionary
Name of a specific Web site. Equinox ◑ 05:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As is Wiktionary, arguably a lesser known website--Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I could RFD that too, but one thing at a time. Equinox ◑ 06:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. It meets WT:BRAND. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * How has it "entered the lexicon"? What proofs can you bring? AFAICT, the existing citations are no better than an academic paper saying "Street (1984) believes such-and-such", or a review saying "Grand Theft Auto is a violent game". Being mentioned, as a proper noun, doesn't automatically make you part of the lexicon, dictionary-wise. Equinox ◑ 07:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary’s traffic.
 * UD’s traffic. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 07:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * More people watch MTV than read any kind of book at all. Your point? Equinox ◑ 08:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This sounds like an RfV issue, not an RfD issue. Here's a cite:
 * 2015, Ylonda Gault Caviness, Child, Please: How Mama's Old-School Lessons Helped Me Check Myself Before I Wrecked Myself
 * Mama didn't need an Urban Dictionary to figure out what we were saying.
 * bd2412 T 14:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet "a" is used, implying a common noun, not a proper noun usage (though it is capitalised). Perhaps we should have a definition at urban dictionary. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is merely an antonomasia. — Dakdada 11:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Antonomasia is probably on one path to commonness for a proper noun. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the citations show that this has entered the lexicon. And that is in WT:BRAND so it's not optional. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as at most one cite (2015c, "Mama didn't need an Urban Dictionary to figure out what we were saying.") may contribute to meeting WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 14:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Governed by WT:NSE. Let's keep single-word attested names of literary works such as Odyssey, Lysistrata and Decameron but this is a multi-word name. Related deletion discussions include Talk:Pearl of Great Price and Talk:Merseburger Zaubersprüche. If we had more cites like that above by bd2412, that would be suggestive of keeping, but we have only one. RFD seems fine since WT:NSE leaves the decision to individual editors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: I searched fairly diligently, I think, and found no other cites like the one I provided; others tend to fail the use/mention distinction. On this basis, I would delete at this time. bd2412 T 13:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleted, as I'm seeing consensus that this has not passed verification. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)