Talk:KDDI

Deletion discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

KDDI

"A Japanese telecommunication company." Generic usage is not possible; we don't have for example Vodafone or Orange; see also Talk:Verizon (a failed entry). Equinox ◑ 18:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

let's try to cite it first i disagree that generic usage is not possible just because it's a telecommunication company. for example, we do have entries like AT&T which is a telecommunication company, and given how much the industry has changed (and the way we talk about it) the last four years i think that Verizon would not be deleted if it were to be recreated today. --Habst (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"We have AT&T" is not an argument to keep "KDDI" but rather an argument to delete "AT&T" which has exactly the same problem. Why does "how the industry has changed" in four years have anything to do with what is a dictionary word, and what is a company name? Who is paying you? Equinox ◑ 20:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

as i parenthesized, the reason why i mentioned how the industry has changed was because it also changed how we talk about telecom companies, specifically with regards to WT:BRAND and their defining qualities / "stereotypes" if you will. my editing topics on wiktionary have been very diverse, and i don't appreciate the insinuation that i'm a shill. nobody has ever paid me to edit nor do i have any conflicts of interest. i disagree with painting any class of lemmas, including companies, as unattestable or un-CFIable until we've rigorously examined the cites on a case-by-case basis. --Habst (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep in RFD absent consensus on company names; not a company name with a space. WT:CFI#Company names does not have consensual support. As for initialism company names, we have ABC, AEC, ALCO, ATA, BBC, CBC, CRC, CTC, BMW, GE, HP, IBM, ITV, MTC, NBC, PBR, SABC, SAS, SKG, TI, and TOC. Talk:Verizon was first kept in RFD since there was no consensus for deletion; then it failed in RFV since in RFV, the non-consensual WT:CFI#Company names was applied. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete - TheDaveRoss 15:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Leaning delete, absent evidence of WT:BRAND compliance, which could have been added any time in the past year. bd2412 T 04:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'd keep it. P.S. Nobody every tried to make an entry fro Vodafone? We clearly need more spambots Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. No citations in any language provided, let alone any that show that it would meet WT:BRAND in English. DCDuring (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 01:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)