Talk:buxomest

RFV discussion: March 2018

 * See Talk:buxomer.

buxomer
Page is has no sources; I'm unable to find any real sources via Google (other than the usual Scrabble dictionary sites and such that have every fake word in imagination); and this word does not follow standard English rules (-er/-est are generally only used for single-syllable words). DimeCadmium (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Not an RFD matter. Send to RFV. Equinox ◑ 00:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (I'm almost certain that I've encountered these forms in Middle English, where the -er and -est endings were more liberally applied. I'll do some digging.) --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See the RFV discussion, which was already there. The term is very clearly citable and at this point cited. Whether or not it's nonstandard is not our concern in regards to the entry's deletion; nonstandard form-of entries are still kept in the case that they appear in enough durably archived sources, which this one does. I'm unfamiliar with your Google searching experience you keep mentioning, but try searching Google Books. Please read Criteria for inclusion. There, you can see what can and cannot be kept as entries. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep of course. No argument for deletion has been made and they are clearly well cited. Ƿidsiþ 09:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Two fast-track keeps. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep to both, though I'm still looking for those instances of the word in Middle English that I know exist and which mean the lattermost definition. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * RFD speedy kept: The nomination results from inexperience with en wikt processes: existence is questioned in WT:RFVE, and the entres now have quotations in the entry to meet WT:ATTEST anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)