Talk:Mobil

Deletion discussion

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.

---

Mobil

A single-word company name. Created on September 2005, deleted on 15 March 2015. I can't find any RFD discussion.

• Keep: can host lexicographical content such as pronunciation. Relevant discussions: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2011/April#Poll: Including company names, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  The definition at the time of deletion was: "A fuel company, part of Exxon Mobil". Even if a company meets WT:BRAND, does that extend to a part of the company's name? bd2412 T 13:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  I don't know, but let me note that Exxon Mobil originated from the merger of Exxon and Mobil: Mobil was once a standalone company. Talk:Exxon#RFD contains what to me are dubious arguments, including "Undeniably promotional entry" and "Even worse than Greater Manchester". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  I don't support WT:BRAND application to company names, but other people may, so let me know whether the following is worth anything:

  • "Furthermore, any such contention would produce a price for Mobil which could not be described as comparable with the price paid by Mobil's most favoured competitor for its gasoline for that quarter."[1]
  • "The record is replete with evidence of Mobil's knowledge, through its medical staff and personnel, that benzene not only was hazardous to the health of individuals but was a contributing cause of AML"[2]
  • "He noted that neither the Clean Air Act, regulations under the Act, nor Mobil's permit included immediate reporting requirements of the type intended by Congress when it created the "federally permitted release" exemption under CERCLA."[3]

  --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have created an entry (from scratch) pending a decision (and I vote keep quoting "all words in all languages"). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  To me, Exxon is a new name. ExxonMobil is really new. I remember when Exxon’s name was Humble, then Enco and Esso. They liked the name Esso, but it lacked a certain zing...and the double-x of Exxon provided that zing. —Stephen ^(Talk) 14:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  Mobil was formerly a brand, so WT:BRAND would be applicable to a definition of it as a brand. Other former (pre 1973) brands of ExxonMobil include Humble, Enco, and Esso. DCDuring TALK 14:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete. At the very least, remove the decidedly non-lexicographical corporate company history from the "definition". Equinox ◑ 18:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep and refer to WT:RFV for citations that meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Purplebackpack89 21:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 16:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)