Talk:homoflexibility


 * The RFV discussion, which will soon be archived here, is of interest to you, I think. This is a word with only two cites we could find, but a strong likelihood of being citable in the near future, if someone keeps a watch on it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In fact, I think I've managed to find a third citation (from a journal, via Google Scholar). - -sche (discuss) 18:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, did that turn up since the last comment at the RFV? In any case, thank you for that. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to have been published late last month (December 17th). - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: August 2015–January 2016
One use in Google Books, three mentions in GB, Google Scholar and Usenet. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * True, plenty of hits on Google News for homoflexible, but none for homoflexibility.


 * Nothing more has turned up in the intervening time, so this is RFV failed. But I expect it'll catch on eventually. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for altering me (on the talk page) to this. Via Google Scholar I manage to find a third citation. There's also an iffy citation on Usenet in soc.motss. (So, this has been recreated with citations / it passes.) - -sche (discuss) 18:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)