Talk:rumour has it

RFD discussion: October–November 2021

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.

---

rumour has it

After some deliberation, I believe this is SOP, although I don't think we have an adequate definition at have it to cover phrases like this. I don't know how to define it though; perhaps something like "according to the thing specified". For proof that they are SOP, there's folklore has it, legend has it, history has it (according to Google Books, search for "history has it that"), the story has it, and many more. Should all of those be entries too? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. It's a fairly common set phrase, rather like word on the street. I've never heard the others. Facts707 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've heard legend has it, but none of the others. An NGram shows a clear predominance for "rumor" and "legend". bd2412 T 23:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep. I'd also advocate for the inclusion of the other phrases listed by you and I don't understand how their existence proves that rumor has it is a SOP. I've heard rumor has it a lot and I've had to look it up the first time which kind of proves to me that it's not a SOP. Fytcha (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep. I think it is idiomatic enough. DonnanZ (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep per all the above keep comments. Imetsia (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Added past tense form. (I have modelled the presentation of this on they say.) Mihia (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep syntactically awkward set phrase. DAVilla 05:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment. The relevant sense at have is apparently present sense #19, "To depict as being". This is not directly substitutable into "rumour has it" (nor even into one of the examples given), but the general idea of "rumour has it" is that rumour depicts or describes something as being a certain way. This sense of "have" can be used semi-arbitrarily where it makes sense; even gossip has it and hearsay has it are readily attestable. There is IMO nothing specially idiomatic about "rumour has it"; it is only a particularly common example. If it is kept it would be because it has attained set-phrase status while other combinations haven't. Mihia (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Leaning keep as sufficiently a set phrase. Mihia (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Overwhelming number of keep votes, so RFD-kept. AG202 (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• @AG202: You are not an administrator, nor are you experienced enough in this project to be making non-admin discussion closures. Furthermore, even with a fair number of responses (I wouldn't consider five !votes to be "overwhelming" on this board), the discussion should still remain open for a month. bd2412 T 20:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  @BD2412 "Entries and senses should not normally be deleted in less than seven days after nomination. ... If there is no consensus for more than a month, the entry should be kept as a 'no consensus'. In practice, however, some discussions drag on for a long time." If you have seen the number of archives I've been doing in the past few months, I do usually wait until a month for no-consensus results, and try to wait a week for keeps if it's overwhelming, and generally ignore deletes usually since I can't delete pages. I've seen votes closed by users early and admin alike for when there's a trend of keep/delete votes, see: Talk:I_am_Groot that I archived myself and that was deleted by an administrator within 2 days of nomination and that you yourself voted in. While I may have closed this specific discussion a bit prematurely, I don't think it's fair to be making claims like that or appealing to a lack of experience when I've been one of the people recently trying to clean up this page, and have been watching other discussions to learn. I've had an account on Wiktionary for 9 years, and while I only started becoming active a year ago, I don't think it's fair to say I'm not experience enough to be making non-admin discussion closures when the rules and guidelines are such. I'm just trying to help the project and cleanup the tons of discussions that have been on these pages, see: the history of Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup that used to have so many discussions yet to be archived. AG202 (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  I am reopening this, in accordance with BD's points. However, AG is right that the current guidelines do not reflect actual practice, so I will update them to do so. If a month had passed since nomination, and the discussion was in its current state, AG's closure would be appropriate, and I have seen no reason to question his judgement elsewhere. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  @AG202: Fair enough. In retrospect, I was active on this project for about a year and a half before becoming an administrator myself. Your cleanup efforts are appreciated. This close did stick out to me as being an overly quick call for a non-admin to make. bd2412 T 21:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  @BD2412 Thank you, and apologies for the quick and a bit heated response. I talked with Meta and things were cleared up, and I now know the updated guidelines, so I'll keep that in mind for the future, and your work and effort are appreciated too. AG202 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 14:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• RFD-kept: 6-2, 75% keep votes. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 14:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)