- Voting on: Removing the sections in the Criteria for Inclusion under the headings Company names and Brand names, and adding the following section before Names of specific entities:
Terms with commercial interest
Terms with commercial interest include company names, brand names, trademarks and service marks. A term with commercial interest should be included if it has become part of the vocabulary that is used by or known to general population. Companies are considered specific entities and may have further restrictions.
The required pervasiveness is measured objectively by the term’s use in at least three independent durably archived citations, each of which meet the following requirements, spanning a period of at least three years. Below, the REFERENT stands for the product, service, or organization to which the term refers. The TYPE refers to the type of product or service, or to the industry, as applicable.
- The source of the citation must not indicate that the term has legal protection, nor so much as identify any parties with economic interest in the REFERENT.
- The subject matter must not generally concern any person or group specifically associated with the REFERENT.
- An understanding of the term’s purpose within the context of the work must rely on knowledge of the REFERENT that cannot be surmised from the content preceding and surrounding the citation. In other words, it must be implausible for one unfamiliar with the REFERENT to infer the intent of the citation from what is present before and immediately after. For instance, if the author uses the REFERENT as a general instance of the TYPE, then the TYPE is central to the meaning and the citation must not identify the TYPE, implicitly or explicitly.
- Vote starts: 00:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Vote ends: 24:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Vote created: DAVilla 08:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support DAVilla 15:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Daniel 23:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support. I don't think it's perfect, but it certainly seems to be an improvement. —RuakhTALK 23:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Dan Polansky 08:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC) The proposed phrasing easily lends itself to excluding most single-word company names and most single-word brand names from Wiktionary, regardless of whether useful lexicographical information can be recorded on them. The phrasing disregards the pronunciation, the etymology and the semantics of the commercial term, instead focusing on "the term's purpose" in the concerned quotation and "the intent of the citation". The citation "According to Wiktionary, anger is a strong feeling of displeasure, hostility or antagonism towards someone or something, usually combined with an urge to harm" (link to Google books for context) does not satisfy the third requirement according to DAVilla, despite the fact that neither the citation nor the text around it introduces the term "Wiktionary" or describes what "Wiktionary" is; the ability of the reader to guess that the entity in question is a dictionary is sufficient to disqualify the quotation. As a result, it will be very rare that a quotation of a commercial term--whether a company name or a brand name--satisfies the third requirement. One class of brand names that is likely to be mostly excluded per this proposal are brand names of pharmaceuticals, regardless of their often having a pronunciation that is non-trivial for a non-native speaker, and regardless of their being more used by their users to refer to the drugs than the generic names.
I admit that, for brand names, the proposed text could be an improvement over what we currently have in CFI, as it is less complex. However, there is no voted-on regulation for company names in CFI, and this proposal installs this mostly excluding regulation also for company names. Furthermore, in its effects, this proposal seems mostly identical to the current CFI for brand names. More detail to my objections can be found on the talk page of this vote. --Dan Polansky 08:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Mglovesfun (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC). Apart from opposing have criteria this lenient in the first place, I don't think these would stand up to scrutiny anyway. Likely they'll just cause more arguments about which citations are valid and which are invalid. --Mglovesfun (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose OrenBochman 13:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm starting to realize this vote is completely irrelevant. Lassie meets CFI, yet it was deleted. Not only that, but each trait was attested at the request of the same people who voted it out. Why would anyone bother finding citations in such a hostile environment? The point of the criteria is to objectively distinguish what belongs from what does not. If people do not agree then they should vote it down here. DAVilla 15:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- The vote is not irrelevant at all. Next time someone nominates a company name for deletion, I will no longer be able to say this: "Keep. There is no voted-on regulation for company names. This is a one-word name that can include useful lexicographical information such as pronunciation and etymology". Next time, I will be only able to vote "keep" in spite of CFI, which I am not sure I will want to do. --Dan Polansky 17:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fails 3-3-0. --Yair rand 00:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)