Talk:wehrb

RFV discussion: June–August 2020
Short for wehraboo, an entry that failed RFD. The cites given may not be CFI-durable. Equinox ◑ 20:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

RFV
This should not have passed RFV with the quotations currently listed. None of them are from durably archived sources (according to policy now/at the time, which I'm not saying is ideal in how it handles web material). 70.172.194.25 18:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March–October 2022
This was closed as RFV-passed in 2020 without providing three durably archived cites: Talk:wehrb. Google Groups has nothing. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like it is only recorded online, as far as I can tell. The only think that I can find that is arguably durably archived is this tweet from 2016 under the argument that the Library of Congress has a copy (see this post for overview), but it also seems very mention-y. As a side note, we can probably add wehrbette to the list of non-CFI compliant terms. &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I immediately knew what this meant, even though I've never seen it before. Terrible. Theknightwho (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Failed for now, this may be revisited if the CFI allows blogs and such, but it seems extremely rare even with social media included. - TheDaveRoss  14:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)