Talk:zzxjoanw

RfV discussion — failed
See the wikipedia article- it's a made up word but it may still be citable? I don't know what the precedent would be for words like this. Nadando 00:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just a an old protologism, one of a few low-quality entries by the same contributor. It is an old example of an oft-mentioned, never-used word. DCDuring TALK 04:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well-documented joke invention. Deleted SemperBlotto 07:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We do have an entry on dord. Should that be deleted as well?--TBC  00:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove strikethrough; re-added word with cites. sewnmouthsecret 19:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Criteria for inclusion and Use–mention distinction. Of your quotations, only the undated one, non–durably-archived one is actually using the word (though the 2001 quotation does at least give the impression that a specific other person has used the word). —Ruakh TALK 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to re-delete if you disagree. I couldn't find much in use, but felt the term deserved an effort. sewnmouthsecret 20:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually think that we should keep it — it's a century old, and it's not a phobia or obscenely long word or POVism or portmanteau or any of the other categories that generate so many fake coinages, so I don't think it's the kind of made-up word we need to worry about — but this being RFV, I have to point out when quotations provided don't meet the letter of CFI. —Ruakh TALK 23:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)