Talk:Axis of weasels

This is indeed plural, thank you please. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

...er the plural of weasel is weasels. At least it is where I come from. Please move the article accordingly or I will file it vFD. Sjc 05:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, ha ha, my edit summary did indeed have a typo. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, I would appreciate it if people do not "redirect" this page. No editorial harm is caused by the plural version, which in fact is the correct one.

Also, since we now have a bona-fide disagreement, Wiki ediquette requires us to discuss this towards consensus 1st (prior to making threats). Feel free to do that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axis_of_weasles

Q: Why don't we consider re-directing the singular to the plural?

Also, please note that Meelar, a very well respected editor made an edit to the plural version tonight [1] and this edit clearly suggests that he has no problem with the plural version. Therefore I ask, why do you?

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't aware that the phrase was used in both singular and plural versions. MY BAD!!! Go ahead and revert the plural version, if it hasn't already been done. Dale Arnett 05:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In all honesty I tell you that I have only heard it in the plural version. In fact Google returns over 400% more hits for the plural version [2] than the singular version [3] Let's talk, ok? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 05:43, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: "Unencyclopaedic, poorly written, not attributing the author of the quote etc etc". FYI: the article was originally copied verbatim from the singular version of the same. You did read the edit histories on both, yes?

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]]

"France promised to consider a new U.N. resolution against Iraq, then worked behind the scenes to prevent its passage, even threatening to veto the resolution if it were voted upon." To me this looks pretty POV and should at least be referenced. I've changed to "France had expressed strong opposition in the United Nations to an invasion of Iraq and had threatening to veto a proposed resolution against Iraq if it were voted upon." unless anyone else can think of a way of expressing the original sentance without POV unreferenced claims. Ralphmcd (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair to small carnivores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argent Stonecutter (talk • contribs) 21:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I've tagged for notability as all the sources seem to be blogs. Mcewan (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty non-notable to me. I'd suggest either merging into Axis of evil or deletion. Robofish (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it was used as a headline in the New York Post, and went on to be the subject of a book. That's notability. Not quite infamy, but the subject of significant coverage nonetheless. Ray^Talk 19:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases in New York Post headlines are not inherently notable. Nor is being the subject of a book. I think the merge suggested above is a good idea. Mcewan (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases in the New York Post and widely circulated on the internet, receiving significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the creator, including over 50 scholarly articles [4] and Snopes, are notable. I realize this is not an AFD, but if one is proposing to remove an article from the articlespace, a search for sources seems advisable. Ray^Talk 14:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? This is a non-notable term with poor sources. I've redirected to the parent topic per best practice. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]