Talk:surbaisé

RFD discussion: November 2017–January 2019
correct form is surbaissé --Diligent (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there's a verb ("to over-fuck"???) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * nope, fun but no... you'll see it attested in Google search but there are spelling mistakes. --Diligent (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a few legit occurrences:, , , and probably others. But this is a rare and humorous formation, not idiomatic. Please let's not start creating entries like fr:rererererecommencer... --Barytonesis (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If there are at least three durably archived usages, the form can be created. We have rare and humorous formations here, and everything written as a single word is automatically considered idiomatic. The same applies to : if it meets CFI, we can have an entry for it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that we (or bd2412?) seem to have applied it to "great great great great great" grandparents, Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables might apply here and result in rererererecommencer being a mere redirect, but yes, humorous formations are not forbidden. - -sche (discuss) 18:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, provided the quotes I mentioned are added, and it's properly tagged as rare and humorous. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * French adjective. (R:GNV) does not find surbaisé, and therefore, no frequency ratio can be determined, and thus, this could be deleted as a rare misspelling. On the other hand, if it is a rare humorous form, then it is intentional, and not a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * there is still the template "rfd" in the article 6 months later. What is the conclusion? Pamputt (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Kept. It's cited; see the quotes I provided above. I don't feel like adding them to the entry, though. Per utramque cavernam 18:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)