Talk:ride the circuit
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Wikitiki89 in topic ride the circuit
RFD[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
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.
SoP -> ride + the + circuit court? Also could not find sources apart from this literal sense. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- I can't see any SoP argument here, did you mean to RFV? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, if the argument is that this is SoP, because it certainly wasn't obvious to me. Haplogy (話) 11:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Strong keep A lot is wrong with this nomination. For one, it would have to be ride the circuit court to be SoP. For two, the definition pertains to circuits other than those of circuit courts, namely circuits of smalltown churches. For three, the most commonly used definition of circuit is the one dealing with electricity, and this has nothing to do with electricity. For four, since there are multiple definitions of circuit, SOP isn't particularly relevant in this case. For five, SOP is bunk. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- You're right, I meant to RFV. You can move it as appropriate, or cite it here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- In my experience, the phrase is just "ride circuit", no "the". bd2412 T 21:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've usually heard "ride the circuit" Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- In my experience, the phrase is just "ride circuit", no "the". bd2412 T 21:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- You're right, I meant to RFV. You can move it as appropriate, or cite it here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Motion to close without an RfV: Everybody has voted keep, and the nominator has admitted he'd rather it go to RfV and RfD. However, there are now four references for the term (two each for law and for ministry), spanning at least a decade. Therefore, an RfV isn't need Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Again motion to close: It's been a month, and there's a consensus to keep this. There's also been enough sources added to stave off an RfV Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)