Talk:beat'emest

RFV discussion (1)
— Beobach972 16:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

RFV discussion (2)
tagged by creator but not listed. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, only Google hits are Wiktionary and Wiktionary mirrors. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, don't speedy. I think it might be a spelling issue; see e.g. . If there is an attestable spelling, then we should try to find it and move this entry accordingly, rather than speedying this entry and hoping someone adds the attestable spelling someday. —Ruakh TALK 11:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (remove what I said. Its the same as the ref that Ruakh gives. The only one I can find too) -- A LGRIF  talk 12:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK by me. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like that Seba Smith quote is the origin and only recorded use of the term. So, I suppose the only question is whether the book—which does have many editions, including recent publications—is a well-known work or not, since that is the only criterion under which this would pass. Dominic·t 14:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "It looks to me like that Seba Smith quote is the origin and only recorded use of the term": No, I don't think so. The spelling would definitely pass under normal criteria. The Seba Smith quote may be the only one for that spelling, though. (BTW, this form overall, regardless of spelling, is nowhere near as common as the form /.) —Ruakh TALK 15:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry moved redirectlessly to [[beatemest]] and detagged. —Ruakh TALK 15:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)