Talk:nonlouse

Request for verification
A creature that isn't a louse. Seems impossible to attest. The plural nonlouses: is dubious too; wouldn't it be nonlice:? I can't find either. Equinox ◑ 04:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 17 raw google hits, of which perhaps one is an actual use. So I think this is a solid delete. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 16:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to be an adjective, usually non-louse, and only used in the specific context of articles about lice or diseases like typhus which may be louse-borne or non-louse-borne. Delete. Pingku 16:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But even there it isn't [non-louse]-[borne], but rather [non-][louse-born]. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 16:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted, it does have one citation which may or may not support the meaning that was there before I nuked it. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Striking per Mglovesfun. (I think we can count this as RFV failed.) —Ruakh TALK 01:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)