Talk:l'évidence même

Does this warrant an entry?

 * Added heading. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I don't think this warrants an entry; we should simply add it to évidence. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Barytonesis!
 * Under WT:CFI, the question is whether this is idiomatic or a sum-of-parts (WT:SOP): idiomatic expressions warrant a separate entry (see Idioms). A literal translation of is “the very evidence” or (more idiomatically in English) “evidence itself”. This literal meaning is distinct from its used meaning as the adjective, so I think this is clearly idiomatic.
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

RFD discussion: November 2019–March 2020
Not an adjective, and SOP. Worthy of an usex at, nothing more. Canonicalization (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, not literally “evidence itself” but “the very obviousness”. A less literal translation could be “the very definition of obviousness”, using a common abuse of the term (see sense 2).  I am not entirely convinced this is transparent. Collins has an entry for c’est l’évidence même.  --Lambiam 05:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. HeliosX (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)