Talk:RPattz

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

RPattz

If we don't include Robert Pattinson, why include this? Also it's a proper noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Cannot find any clause or section of CFI which might justify this entry. -- Gauss 09:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Deleted. Ƿidsiþ 15:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

JBiebs

See above talk:RPattz when archived. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Cannot find any clause or section of CFI which might justify this entry. -- Gauss 09:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

RATM

See above talk:RPattz when archived. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep; Robert Pattinson etc. would be entries describing a particular person (or band), while these are semi-obscure, semi-slangy terms used to refer to those particular people or band and therefore within the scope of a dictionary. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 20:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Compare Led Zep, iTouch, Apop and Codies. Equinox ◑ 23:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Under our existing practice there is no basis for deleting such abbreviations AFAICT. We have many abbreviations of non-includable terms, both NISoP terms and proper names. I would favor rules that would exclude these and similar terms while still being more inclusive of abbreviations than of the abbrevienda. DCDuring TALK 20:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, although DCD is correct that we have no basis in policy for deleting these. I think we need a policy covering nicknames of specific persons. I'd want to keep the Old Pretender and the Bard (if they existed), but I don't see that there's any value in keeping recently coined nicknames for "celebrities". --EncycloPetey 21:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, we do have [[Sweet Swan of Avon]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I say process these under the standard for brand names. Find three CFI-worthy citations in print, spanning three yeas, that do not also mention the unabbreviated form, or provide genre cues. If they can not be found, delete. bd2412 T 19:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep

1.The party which apparently moved to rfd did not even present a case for deletion. 2.Apparently the party which moved to rfd cavalierly refers to "the above". I contend that the burden is on the movant and must be a self contained request. It should not be incumbent upon interested editors to parse the entirety of a very long page to seek out some other article. 3. Even if (2) is not upheld, there is no unambigous indication of which of the many entries "above" we are supposed to be looking for. 4. Even if we decipher the puzzle presented by the rfd movant, there is no way to determine which specific phrase of their writings they believe are pertinent. 5. Aside from the failure to present any case for deletion, whatsoever, the obvious defense is that RATM is an idiomatic English language term which is firmly established in colloquial West Coast youth culture, and by youth I mean anyone under 65 years of age who is aware of contemporary culture. 6. I concur with Equinox, there is ample precedent. 7. As DCxxx asserts, "abbreviations" are includable even when abbrevianda are not. However, in the instant case, it is not established that Rage Against the Machine is not includable, and, even if it is, RATM is a separate case and, more to the point, is not an "abbreviation" at all. It is an idiomatic word which is a hybrid of initialisation/acronym -not the same thing as an abbreviation, at all. It which can even be properly pronounced RATM. The abbreviation is actually "Rage". 8. As a hybrid initialisation/acronym it is a particularly interesting word. That rarity alone makes its case. Pronounced "rat-immm" or "Ar-Ay-Tee-Emm". In actual usage,often read as Rage-Against-the-Machine, an interesting pattern of use in and of it self. 9. This is not an old paper dictionary. 10.EncycloPetey, while voting delete, admits there is no policy supporting deletion, so that vote self-annihilates and is not a legitimate countable vote. EnPete really needs to change his vote to abstain and write up an essay or proposal for a policy modification. 11. Independently of EncycloPete's self-dissolving, "Mission Impossible" non-vote, his or her proposed policy makes no sense because it suggests that we should keep sixteenth century entries but contemporary words with the same qualifications should be excluded. 12. The rfd does not pass the smell test. Imagine a poor beseiged inner city English teacher wondering what the kids are talking about...her OED won't do her much good.

Please respond to each of these objections or surrender the field. Thanks. Geofferybard 23:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Move to RfV. All three of these seem to be trade names. Accordingly, they should meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No I don't think these are brand names by any stretch of the imagination. My objection to "Imagine a poor beseiged inner city English teacher wondering what the kids are talking about...her OED won't do her much good." is that once you start adding terms because people might look them up, you can justify anything - Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are common searches here. That said, we allow acronyms for other single entities like WHO and BBC, so perhaps we should just allow these by default when they are attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(My objection to the teacher thing is "why on Earth would a teacher turn to a dictionary to look up pop bands?".) Equinox ◑ 12:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or send to RFV. No one really uses this and they aren't attestable. TeleComNasSprVen 01:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Cannot find any clause or section of CFI which might justify this entry. Examples by Equinox not comparable. -- Gauss 09:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

deleted all after Widsith already deleted one above. -- Liliana • 14:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

RFD discussion: August 2017–March 2018

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

RPattz

Let us consider undeletion of this, originally entered as "Robert Pattinson". This was failed in 2011 per Talk:RPattz, and the rationales provided there seem weak: "If we don't include Robert Pattinson, why include this? Also it's a proper noun." and "Cannot find any clause or section of CFI which might justify this entry." We have recently kept some space-free nicknames per Talk:J-Lo. As for policy, WT:NSE leaves editor discretion in keeping or deleting RPattz; the term does not come under "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep deleted and delete J-Lo too. Cruft barren of etymological value. bd2412 T 21:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  Does Pattz generally refer to someone named Pattinson? By the way, I now noticed we have R-Pattz, which survived RFD as part of Talk:J-Lo nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Undelete, as an alternative form of R-Pattz. Terms used for individuals have lexicographical value, even if some editors would rather dismiss pop culture lexicography as "cruft". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Undelete, to be consistent with the results at Talk:J-Lo where R-Pattz was kept. This is not a terribly valuable entry, but it is a proper name with no space and no hyphen in it, and these I generally favor including as long as they are attested; WT:NSE leaves editor discretion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Should we also include Ice Cube, Antigirl, Psy, etc.? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Pricasso is an entry that really annoys me, heh. Equinox ◑ 23:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

  I removed many mention (not use) quotations from Citations:Pricasso, but there are still enough to have this attested, so it won't fail RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

No consensus for undeletion: I'm only seeing two votes for undeletion and one against despite the long discussion period. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

OTOH 2:1 ratio is usually considered a consensus; I admit that so few votes make a bad basis for anything. Could we perphaps get more bold votes? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Things like this are such edge cases; I don't see them as being the sort of thing that should obviously be included (we wouldn't have a sense at Robert or Robert Pattinson or R. Pattinson or hopefully even R. P. for "Robert Pattinson"), but I don't see them as the sort of thing that should obviously be deleted, either. Personally I would prefer to omit this and R-Pattz from Wiktionary, but as Talk:J-Lo shows, other editors prefer to keep these entries, and it's inconsistent to have R-Pattz but not RPattz. Because I have no strong feelings but do value consistency, and because the majority here is reaching the same conclusion as the previous consensus, I say undelete. - -sche (discuss) 01:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

All right, I am now seeing a 3:1 consensus in favour of undeletion, so I have undeleted the entry. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)