Talk:bible belt

RFD discussion: November 2013–July 2014
Same as above, one sense should be Bible belt but is SoP (belt has this definition) and the other should be Bible Belt, which already exists. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Belongs at RfV. Too bad it can't be a redirect. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved to RFV. — Keφr 18:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June 2014–February 2015
I ask for attestation of this capitalization: bible belt. Note that Bible Belt exists, and is currently not questioned. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if this capitalisation is accepted, aren't the two definitions basically the same. Does the Bible Belt ever mean anywhere other than the south-east part of the country.--Dmol (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the first definition of "bible belt" is meant to be general, potentially referring to any bible belt in any country. The question is whether this usage is attestable. --WikiTiki89 00:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not experienced at this, so ignore me if I don't know what I'm on about, but how about and ? This, that and the other (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The first citation seems to be rather attributive use of the narrow meaning. But it may be either way. The second I cannot read. — Keφr 12:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with the fact that it is attributive. It seems to be the broader meaning, since it is referring to regions of Australia as far as I can tell (even though America is mentioned earlier in the paragraph). The second I also cannot read. --WikiTiki89 13:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What about Bible Belt (Netherlands)? 13:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be another narrow sense. It doesn't necessarily prove the existence of the broad sense. --WikiTiki89 13:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also Finland, Sweden and Norway have a "bible belt". I don't know how often they are written about in English, though. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sceptical that this capitalization ("bible belt") is worth keeping; I am even more sceptical that it is worth keeping as a lemma. Inspired by Heka's comment, I have added some citations of "Bible belt" and "Bible Belt" in reference to Finnish and Norwegian areas to Citations:Bible belt. I am not sure if it makes sense to have a dozen narrow senses or one broad sense + a subsense for the US region, which is the region meant by most of the citations (even most of the citations that turn up for searches like or ). - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've deleted this particular capitalization as RFV-failed. I've expanded Bible Belt; Bible belt also exists as a (cited) alt form. - -sche (discuss) 03:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)