Talk:argol-bargolous

RFV discussion: June–October 2015
Entered to mean argumentative. Do we have attesting quotations meeting WT:ATTEST? Dictionary entries do not count; beware of the requirement of independence (WT:CFI) of the quoations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can cite argol-bargol so I created the entry. That makes argol-bargolous likely, but still technically uncited of course. Spinning Spark  21:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that there is currently one citation for argol-bargolous on the citation page. Spinning Spark  07:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)