Talk:could one be any more

Identifying the placeholders
Could one be any more thus?

How is this supposed to identify one as a placeholder? What's the difference between this and a phrase where the word "one" is expected? Davilla 15:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How did "thus" get in there?
 * I had introduced it a long long time ago. Don't worry, missing a detail or two proves you're not a robot. Davilla
 * Since when do we identify placeholders any differently than the rest of the component terms? All headword component words are supposed to be wikified, last I heard.
 * Last I heard anything was when you told me, also a long long time ago. But absolute statements can hardly consider corner cases. I don't know what the policy is. What I know is it doesn't make sense to apply it to placeholders. Davilla
 * And why is the "C" capitalized? --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Should probably be moved to could someone be any more. Or is it could somebody be and more instead? Davilla 16:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for deletion - kept
Kept. See archived discussion of May 2008. 15:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

could one be any more
No actual definition that I can make out. SemperBlotto 21:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, looking at the RFD debate listed on the talk page, this passed an RFD in 2008 without a definition. I can't see a way of defining it without moving it to could someone be any more something (genuinely), with a meaning such as . Sad but true. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Our mission is to include every word in every language. Nobody has said anything (2.6 M Google hits for this one!) about every popular phrase, especially if they are SoP. --Hekaheka 10:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per what the others have written, just above, especially Hekaheka. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more with the above comments. I remain disappointed and frustrated that we don't have a phrasebook with actual criteria for inclusion in which some forms of this could possibly belong (but only in particular complete-in-themselves exemplars, I hope). Delete. DCDuring TALK 12:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for 'no usable content given'. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Failed RFD. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)