The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. 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. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
- I think we can speedily delete this one, right? Equinox ◑ 17:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Cited. DAVilla 14:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- This seems like an opportunity to clarify WT:BRAND, at least for my benefit. I have three problems with the citations as they relate to the proper noun in this case:
- I didn't think that we took similes as valid cites.
- It would have certainly simplified many earlier WT:BRAND efforts if we simply allowed all citations of the form "the [Proper noun] of X" constructions as valid citations of [Proper noun].
- It is also unclear to me what the actual meaning "AC/DC" in the citations is. What aspect of the band is being referred to?
- -- DCDuring TALK 15:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- RFV-failed (has only two citations that meet BRAND CFI). - -sche (discuss) 00:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)