Talk:soylent pink

not in common use
Entry created by editor on Wikipedia whose sole reason is to make it "not removable" from the enWiki article. Not a proper word. Not in "common use" Collect (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a "request for verification" template. It just needs three citations to be a "proper word". SemperBlotto (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I have read the appropriate pages on Wiktionary - and fear that Wiktionary may become for "dysphemistic neologism" what Commons has become for "images of prurient interest." Which would be quite highly regrettable, indeed. This "word" fits the "deletion" requirements and not just the atttribution requirements. Collect (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Entries are included here not based on speculation, pessimism, personal opinion, nor misunderstanding the deletion "requirements" of which there are none. Just on whether they be attributable. Also assume good faith, I have made thousands of contributions to this project not just soylent pink or other ones you personally dislike.Lucifer (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And I also note how you have been officially warned on enWiki for your POV pushing on the topic. POV pushing is against all WMF policies.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * By error, I was warned to not use POV sources by an editor that accidentally thought The Independent (a highly respected newspaper) was not reliable nor neutral source and if you read the discussion several editors pointed that out. And for the sake of not arguing, sure it is. So what? That has nothing to do with this talk page.Lucifer (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! The thread is still there, and misstating the issue does not aid you.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant here and anyone that is interested can see for themselves, but they don't care here.Lucifer (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(od) so "they just don't care" is a great excuse for POV dictionary edits? What a shame. Collect (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What POV? It's a dictionary definition, there's no room for POV, that's a wikipedia issue.Lucifer (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV
Some evidence exists, but not much. Could we have three proper citations please. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The CFI-compliant citations I found were not referring to the beef remnants but (humorously) to spam and similar products. Equinox ◑ 11:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope - and the editor promoting all the related additions here is doing it for reasons as the terms are more than adequately defined in the enWiki article on "Pink Slime"  All should be deleted as being here as "not really definitions" in the first place. Collect (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles don't replace Wiktionary entries, if the terms are valid, they can have entries here, no matter who created them for what supposed reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "definition" used here is one of a neologism at best, not in common usage, certainly not in usage for even a year,  and with a pointy definition in the first place.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is cited as having been coined for this usage in 2008 by the USDA scientist that also coined pink slime. Wiktionary covers all words in all languages. Collect has followed me here from Wikipedia and seems to have a pro-LFTB agenda.Lucifer (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in common usage is not a valid deletion reason; do you propose we delete every definition with a tag? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If a neologism has not been noted without "scare quotes" in any newspaper or other reliable source, then yes - it is absolutely "not common" at all. Unless, of course, this is 1984. Collect (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This project catalogues uncommon terms as well and it is cited as being used with and without scare quotes, nevertheless the scare quotes really quite irrelevant anyways, with or without the citations show that it is used. The scare quotes are used to state that the publication does not endorse the term or that is a newer term. Also it doesn't have to be used in a newspaper, it can be used on usenet as well or a book.Lucifer (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should "scare quotes" matter? Have a look at WT:CFI -- if a term meets these criteria, it's got a place here.  I don't see anything about scare quotes at WT:CFI.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway... what Collect is getting at is that this is a neologism that is very unlikely to meet our Criteria for Inclusion, specifically the criterion that words be in use for at least a year. The recent (&lt;1 year) awareness of pink slime makes it unlikely this can be attested except in the different sense Equinox refers to. - -sche (discuss) 18:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But this is not true, pink slime has exploded in the media this year but the term has been used by Jamie Oliver's program in 2011 and also in the news in 2010 and earlier, in fact both pink slime and soylent pink were coined by the USDA scientists that did not approve of it but were overruled in 2008 and this is cited.Lucifer (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At this moment, no, the 'pink slime' sense is not cited: the 2008 citation is not durable; every other citation is from 2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "At least a year" is fine by me. Rarity and scare quotes, however, are beside the point for CFI, which was my point here.  :)  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What Collect should have said, was that citations with a term in quotes tend to be mentions (where a word stands for itself) rather than uses (where a word conveys its defined meaning). In most of our citations under the "pink slime" definition, "soylent pink" means the phrase "soylent pink", not pink slime. So far, only one counts for CFI. ~ Robin (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Two of them are without quotes, one is not a mention just quotesed.Lucifer (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So anyone have access to the USDA memos that the non-durable 2008 citation references, if so then we do have a 2008 verifiable and durable citation.Lucifer (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect has removed the sense, correctly noting that it fails RFV. - -sche (discuss) 22:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)