Talk:fair exchange is no robbery
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests 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.
It doesn't meet the Attestation Criteria --TNMPChannel (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Out of scope of RFD; already in RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
It doesn't exist in some news, but in some books and dictionaries. Where are the proper sources? TNMPChannel 04:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- You created this entry. I strongly suggest that before you create any entry that you check that WT:ATTEST is satisfied – that the term appears "in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year", and that these instances must convey meaning. "Conveying meaning" indicates that the term must actually be used, and not merely mentioned. For example, "Apples are my favourite fruit" is a use, but "The word apple begins with the letter A" is only a mention. Appearance of the term in a dictionary also does not count as conveying meaning. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Better tell an admin to delete "fair exchange is no robbery". --TNMPChannel (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
cited Kiwima (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)