Talk:Craftsman
RFD edit
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests 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.
"A brand of tools" Equinox ◑ 22:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't this an RfV matter? bd2412 T 00:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think so, but I am no longer certain what the appropriate venue for items is. In any event, it would seem that WT:CFI#Brand names should apply to attestation. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, no it's not really a simple question of attestation, it's more about interpretation of quotations rather than if such attestations exist. Nobody's saying this isn't attested in English texts, what we are saying is that it's not dictionary material. I'd rather all such candidates be posted here, as I don't see how an RFV can handle this sort of entry. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- There are no citations to interpret. If we had some then we examine the citations using the company and brand standards at WT:CFI. WT:BRAND is helpful in showing what it takes for a brand name to convey meaning. DCDuring TALK 12:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not wasting my time digging up quotations as long as Mglovesfun is saying that policy isn't policy. DAVilla 19:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- There are no citations to interpret. If we had some then we examine the citations using the company and brand standards at WT:CFI. WT:BRAND is helpful in showing what it takes for a brand name to convey meaning. DCDuring TALK 12:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, no it's not really a simple question of attestation, it's more about interpretation of quotations rather than if such attestations exist. Nobody's saying this isn't attested in English texts, what we are saying is that it's not dictionary material. I'd rather all such candidates be posted here, as I don't see how an RFV can handle this sort of entry. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Moved to RFV.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
—msh210℠ (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Should meet WT:CFI#Brand names. (See also WT:BRAND.) DCDuring TALK 16:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)