You seem very confused. On the other hand, this response is six weeks late, but for clarity:
1. Sorry, we do. WT:BRAND has two explicit instances of simile. Metaphor is only a proposed criterion for specific entities.
2. These citations are not valid under WT:BRAND merely because they follow that pattern. The pattern is neither necessary nor sufficient to meet WT:BRAND. I chose those quotations because they were the strongest in allowing a specific entity. As you know we don't have criteria for that yet, so strong quotations will avoid having to cite again in the future.
For instance, the last cite is valid because it does not indicate at all what AC/DC is in the preceding and surrounding text. On the other hand, I'm realizing I didn't check that some of the others weren't written about the type of "product" (music?) in general, so they may not work in that regard.
3. The less clear the meaning, the stronger the case for passing WT:BRAND. I really don't care to cite what AC/DC actually means because we all already know that. DAVilla 09:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the 1991 and 2009 citations are good; I am less certain that the 1999 and 2006 citations (which are clearly discussing musical artists) are valid. - -sche(discuss) 04:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
My assessment is that the sense needs one more BRAND-meeting citation (to go with the 1991 and 2009 ones) to meet BRAND CFI. I welcome other assessments. - -sche(discuss) 19:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
"Rap" and "death metal" as subgenres of rock music convey the idea that AC/DC has some similar role in some other subgenre of rock. Thus, those quotes wouldn't seem to qualify. DCDuringTALK 20:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed (has only two citations that meet BRAND CFI). - -sche(discuss) 00:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)