Talk:Verizon

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.

---

Verizon

I request undeletion (keep AKA undelete). Deleted in 2009. I cannot find any process data related to RFD; anyone has a better luck? This company name is a single-word one and can host pronunciation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Before it was deleted, the page said nothing but "VERIZON". Being empty of content, it was eligible for speedy deletion, and should not be re-created in that condition. If there's evidence of this word being used in a way consistent with WT:BRAND, let's list it at Citations:Verizon. Until there are cites showing that it's eligible for inclusion, the pronunciation info at w:Verizon will suffice. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(sarcasm) Sure, it's the business of encyclopedias to provide pronunciation of terms, not of dictionaries. Especially given that "Pronunciations [...] are the most essential part of any lexical entry, [...]" as per diff. (end of sarcasm) --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not the business of dictionaries to do other people's advertising for them. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

An entry in a dictionary with its definition line consisting of a small number of words is much less of an advertising than an entry in an encyclopedia. I tend to think it is not advertising at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Angr: We advertise political parties, NGOs, political jurisdictions, religions, and ideologies. We just have a bias against commercial enterprise — filthy lucre and all that. DCDuring TALK 15:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I myself added cites to McDonald's to ensure its keepability. If you want an entry for Verizon, just add the cites. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Allow creation of a new entry: Purplebackpack89 16:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  I placed some quotations at Citations:Verizon and recreated Verizon, given the previous deletion was not of a Verizon dictionary entry but rather of a post that, per Angr above, had no usable content since it only said "VERIZON". --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 14:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September 2015–August 2016

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.

---

Verizon

WT:COMPANY says: "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." Somehow I don't see it coming for this entry. -- Liliana • 09:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep; stop removing lexicographical material. The cited policy is not supported by consensus: 1) Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names, 2) no argument for excluding company names was ever presented other than that they are not words, in the same vein that given names (Peter, Martina) are allegedly not words. In general terms, attesting quotations are at Citations:Verizon. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Citations are just using it as a company name. (But do people ever talk about "my Verizon" meaning their mobile phone?) Equinox ◑ 02:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Citations of "gold" using it just as the name of a metal would be also good enough. We do not need to show that "gold" is used in a way from which it is not obvious that gold is a metal. Same for New York, Atlantic Ocean, and Betelgeuse. Anyone remembers those "useful" RFV nominations like that in Talk:Xenophanes? Fortunately, they were stopped via Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Enforce the rule. If you want to try and get that clause removed from CFI be my guest (I don't like the way it's worded much either) but it is there. Dan Polansky as the number #1 enforcer (or attempted enforcer) of rules I don't think you can just duck out of rules when you don't like them. Also that vote is from two and a half years ago so I'd discount it just for that. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't know how you arrived at the idea that I am somehow "the number #1 enforcer" of "rules". A quick glance at e.g. Wiktionary:Votes/2014-11/Entries which do not meet CFI to be deleted even if there is a consensus to keep suggests otherwise. The only "rule" I am trying to enforce is not even a rule, it is a principle. It is the principle of consensus. It is on this principle that the "rule" on company names that got into CFI without discussion and consensus should be ignored. I do not share your obsession with statutes and other "rules" not supported by consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Amended. I do try to ask people to abide by a host of principles or "rules" other than consensus. Whether I am "number #1" I do not know, but I am not sure it matters. Here I invoke the principle of consensus as one that is above an unvoted-on regulation; I think I have been pretty consistent in this over the couple last years. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names is actually a vote to try and change a rule, which was voted down by a majority (bear in mind votes on Wiktionary can also be voted down by a minority) so surely posting that link is self defeating. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The vote was my attempt to have CFI reflect consensus. If it passed, CFI would have accurately stated, for company names, that "A name of a specific entity must not be included if it does not meet the attestation requirement. Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which"; that is so since company names are names of specific entities. The vote shows the state of consensus or its lack at the time. If you draw from the vote the conclusion that the controversial part of CFI was ever supported by consensus, you are wrong in that. If you think that it deeply matters that the vote was for removing the part rather than keeping it, as for what the consensus on the matter actually is, you are wrong in that as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Getting back to Verizon specifically, it seems to me that the citations given are inappropriate, and that this should be moved to rfd, where I would vote to delete. -- · (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

  @·: What is the rationale for removing Verizon, together with the potential pronunciation? Again, referring back to the controversial part of CFI is not a rationale; the controversial part itself needs a rationale, and close to none was provided for it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Dan Polansky is proposing we exempt this entry from the rules. I propose that we don't. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

As per the above discussion, I object that the "rule" to be applied is not supported by consensus, and that its supporters failed to produce a meaningful rationale. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Long time ago, someone told me something about "rules" vs. queuing in the U.K. Can someone comment on that? Is it true that the British abhor "rules" and love queuing as something that makes sense regardless of whether it is a "rule"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• RFV failed. It seems that no citations meeting WT:COMPANY have been provided. Like Dan Polansky, I think that it would ultimately be better to keep this entry, and I would support a vote to change CFI accordingly, but for now, both CFI and the consensus in this discussion make clear that the entry should be deleted. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)