< mutante_> can hold_one's_urine really be a noun? < LinkyC> http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/hold_one%27s_urine < Amgine> I... don't think so. I've never ever heard that phrase. < Dvorty|gone> hold it might be used idiomatically that way, but I don't think that one is really used as such. < LinkyC> http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/hold_it < Dvorty|gone> And it looks like the page only shows up on cleanup lists and categorizing pages: Special:WhatLinksHere/hold_one's_urine < mutante_> change Noun to Verb ? < Dvorty|gone> mutante: yes, and then RFV/RFD the whole thing. I don't think it's really used that way that much.
Mutante 16:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
RFV passed. Tag will be removed forthwith. Not striking this section, so it won't be bot-archived, and can be moved to RFD per Connel.—msh210℠ 21:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
< mutante_> can hold_one's_urine really be a noun? < LinkyC> http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/hold_one%27s_urine < Amgine> I... don't think so. I've never ever heard that phrase. < Dvorty|gone> hold it might be used idiomatically that way, but I don't think that one is really used as such. < LinkyC> http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/hold_it < Dvorty|gone> And it looks like the page only shows up on cleanup lists and categorizing pages: Special:WhatLinksHere/hold_one's_urine < mutante_> change Noun to Verb ? < Dvorty|gone> mutante: yes, and then RFV/RFD the whole thing. I don't think it's really used that way that much.
Mutante 16:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
RFV passed. Tag will be removed forthwith. Not striking this section, so it won't be bot-archived, and can be moved to RFD per Connel.—msh210℠ 21:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Regarding its commonness: google books:"hold|holds|holding|held my|our|your|his|her|its|their|one's urine" gets 662 hits, which isn't half bad given its fairly limited context. Regarding its sum-of-parts-ness: I see how you could think that, but I think you're mistaken. Note that the term was originally defined here wrongly, and as far as I can tell, no one suspected the right definition until I actually added a few quotations, and looked through other b.g.c. hits, and the correct definition became clear. (The definition originally given would have been accurate for (deprecated template usage) hold it in, though.) I think that if native speakers can't accurately guess the meaning of a phrase, that suggests that the term is not sum-of-parts. Regarding its restricted context: Odd, I'd have considered that a reason to keep the entry, so that we can elucidate that context. —RuakhTALK 14:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
No consensus: kept.—msh210℠ 20:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept again. (As an involved party, I feel a bit bad about closing this, but man does this page need clearing out. If anyone's particularly bothered by this, you can re-open it.) —RuakhTALK 22:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:hold one's pee#Deletion discussion. bd2412 T 18:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)