Talk:eatin' for two

RFD
The entry explains that eatin’ for two is an eye dialectal form of eating for two. It might be harmless to have the entry, or even helpful, if a person read eatin’ for two and assumed it (with apostrophe) was a dialectal idiom. It might also be sufficient to have only eatin' → eating, and eating for two. What is the community opinion? I presume the result of this discussion will also be valid for eatin' like a bird. - -sche 03:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mine is "keep" (if attested, natch). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - as long as we have an entry for eatin': SemperBlotto 08:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to unify these as for two, as I think pregnant women can do more than just eat for two. But I'm not sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard people refer jokingly to a pregnant woman's "drinking for two", or "sleeping for two": but those are SOP (sleeping for two people) joke take-offs on eating for two. Our entry claims (and I don't know this to be true, but it may well be) that eating for two means "pregnant", in which case it's not SOP. (If the entry is mistaken then eating for two merely means "eating for two people", and is SOP and uninclusible.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble finding a good example in Google Books of "eating for two" being a simple euphemism for pregnancy. Most of them are talking about diet and nutrition specifically, though always during pregnancy.--Prosfilaes 02:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 13:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Failed RFD. Nobody's dug up any evidence for the pregnancy sense which the creator agrees is required for this entry to be inclusible. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)