Talk:forever alone

I saw no indication that any of those cites are blogs. How do you guys determine it is a blog? Mnbv098 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: November 2017–January 2018
A bunch of cites that don't pass WT:ATTEST in the entry. From our usual rules-disregarding incel-obsessed editor, it seems. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I suspect this editor is PaM. Anyway they keep adding bloggy Web cites despite being told. Equinox ◑ 22:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Their IP information is consistent, but not conclusive. The behavioral evidence is pretty strong, though, and I did find out that they've been using three accounts on one of their IPs, so I blocked all three for abusing multiple accounts. I'm sure they'll be back with new IPs and new accounts, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Use as a noun can be cited, though "an incel" may not be a good definition.   Also as an alt text here. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, all but one of those are on non-durably archived sources. There were other cites out there, however. I believe this is cited. Kiwima (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * BTW, Talk:Forever Alone was deleted (but that's something different, a specific Internet meme character). Equinox ◑ 20:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)