Talk:fair exchange is no robbery

RFD discussion: September 2017
It doesn't meet the Attestation Criteria --TNMPChannel (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Out of scope of RFD; already in RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September–October 2017
It doesn't exist in some news, but in some books and dictionaries. Where are the proper sources? TNMPChannel 04:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You created this entry. I strongly suggest that before you create any entry that you check that WT:ATTEST is satisfied – that the term appears "in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year", and that these instances must convey meaning. "Conveying meaning" indicates that the term must actually be used, and not merely mentioned. For example, "Apples are my favourite fruit" is a use, but "The word apple begins with the letter A" is only a mention. Appearance of the term in a dictionary also does not count as conveying meaning. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Better tell an admin to delete "fair exchange is no robbery". --TNMPChannel (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)