Talk:WikiLove

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
This one could be a close call... -- Liliana • 05:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete not in widespread use outside of one websiteLucifer 04:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * keep: It's a word. And, moreover, it's widely used (986 000 Google hits). And not on a single website (but, even if used on a single website, including it would be justifiable). Lmaltier 08:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote. It is a request that someone provide valid attestation. DCDuring TALK 13:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get as many hits as that, and the ones I've looked at all seem to be one website or about that website. One website is not sufficient (anyone can create a website and add silly words), but if others are talking about it, then it becomes borderline, and if they continue talking about it then maybe we should include the word.  There seem to be several senses and capitalisations.    D b f  i  r  s   09:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can try Google Books, you'll find printed attestations. But contesting that this word exists seems preposterous. Lmaltier 18:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it have to "exist" outside of its point of origin, and have three attestations over more than a year? I don't think this does. This is just a feature of one single website, its kindness shown on wikipedia or wikimedia projects only. It's not used anywhere else.Lucifer 23:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The few Google Books mentions seem to be all about the Wikimedia foundation, and some just have the "word" in quotes or as part of a URL. I'm not convinced that it satisfies our CFI, but if someone can find independent citations, then I might be ...    D b f  i  r  s   09:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, citations are about Wikipedia, what would you expect? Would you delete platypus because all citations are related to this animal? Lmaltier 20:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that most of the very few claimed citations are in Wikipedia, and most are mentions, not usages of the word. I don't think the platypus has its own website, but if it had, perhaps it would have the word platypuslove.  If this word began to be used elsewhere, rather than just mentioned, then it might, eventually, meet CFI.    D b f  i  r  s   22:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it were a made up neologism I would but it is not and platypus meets the CFI for many reasons, not to mention there are tons of different sources for platypus.Lucifer 21:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This has sat here uncited for several months... it's time for some tough love. In accordance with policy, I have deleted this term. - -sche (discuss) 03:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)