Talk:not have the faintest idea

RFD discussion: July–November 2018
A common collocation, but does it warrant an entry? Per utramque cavernam 10:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * not have the faintest is a slightly shorter form. DonnanZ (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Or even I haven't the faintest. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How is she doing?
 * - Not the faintest clue.
 * "I haven't the faintest" feels like an unfinished sentence to me, probably used to express confusion, like what the. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's just a clipping, a shorter way of saying it. "I haven't the faintest" would normally be an answer to a question. DonnanZ (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose that happens, I personally can't recall hearing it often though. When it comes to clippings, I think "Not the faintest clue/idea." is more common. And "Not a clue." is even shorter. And no idea is even shorter than that. I'd stick to not have the faintest (existing entry) in this case. Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you cite the clipping? I was unable to. Requests for verification/English Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Compare to and, and note the redirects pointing to the latter page. That seems a fine approach to use for "faintest" as well. -Stelio (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Model entries for and  after  and, respectively, as Stelio mentioned. I don't think that any of the forms of "Have the faintest/foggiest idea/clue/notion/etc. [about something]" warrant an entry, as they are essentially SoP. They can simply be referenced in the etymologies of faintest, foggiest, have the faintest and have the foggiest. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (Though honestly it may be more useful to make the phrasal verbs negative, i.e. and .  Either way would work, I suppose.) --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (Though honestly it may be more useful to make the phrasal verbs negative, i.e. and .  Either way would work, I suppose.) --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * A R:GNV search: . There, not have the slightest idea is most common. Making one entry a host of the whole pattern, and letting other entries redirect there could be useful or acceptable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. In the Ngram search I posted, this is the second most common item. It is useful for translation. The reader might be able to put the translation together from the translations of the parts, but it would be a process fraught with uncertainty since they would not know whether the resulting combination is actually used. If not that, create not have the slightest idea and redirect to that entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, this can be kept via WT:LEMMING: in Macmillan, Longman and M-W. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, not dictionary material. Fay Freak (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Dictionary makers disagree as per my post above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)