Talk:CNN

RFD

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.

---

CNN

--Connel MacKenzie 16:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

keep, but modify the entry so that the expansion of the initialism links directly to the wikipedia article. This is a major news network, and there is no harm in explaining what the initialism stands for. --EncycloPetey 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

keep. Featured in regular dictionaries (e.g. Merriam-Webster, Webster's New World). JackLumber 22:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep and relink per 'Petey. bd2412 T 00:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

delete. I'd like to see how it meets CFI. Yes, it's huge, as is HBO, MTV, and Exxon. But is the only reason we're keeping it because it fits under initialisms? Isn't that meant for things like OMG, WTF, and FUBAR?--Halliburton Shill 01:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

...and for EU, USA, NATO, etc.; there are many different kinds of initiaisms, including some that are names. --EncycloPetey 04:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Halliburton Shill, all initialisms, provided they are widely used, are good to put in Wiktionary. — Paul G 16:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Initialisms are inherently idiomatic because, e.g., the letters "C", "N", and another "N" do not inherently stand for "Cable", "News", and "Network". bd2412 T 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Idiomatic? Exxcuse me? --Connel MacKenzie 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If I pick three letters at random out of a hat - HQP or FJJ or ERH, they likely mean nothing to most people (although there is probably at least one organization out there for every three letter combo you can think of). But if the letters are C, N, and N, that immediately (for most people, I would think) brings to mind one particular set of words for which those letters stand, among all the possible combinations of such words. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify the original nomination: this entry is blatantly promotional. We should not have entries for commercial entities. There is nothing linguistically relevant about it...it is just a name. AFAIK, the trademark is for "CNN", since that is what they go by, with only passing references to the full name. Explaining the reasoning for advertiser's choices of random letters is not real helpful. Anything that might be pointing to CNN should instead be pointing to w:CNN, anyhow. --Connel MacKenzie 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh piffle Connel - an entry that says "CNN is an initialism for Cable News Network" is far less promotional than a Wikipedia article about them. If there was another use of the initials "CNN" (e.g. a hypothetical movement for a united "Cameroon, Niger and Nigeria") that was not related to a commercial entity we would include that definition but not the most high-profile one - how does this help the user? Particularly if we direct users to Wikipedia to find out about the news organisation to Wikipedia (without of course defining what it is - as that would be "promotional") the users would expect to find an article the minor use, which may not meet the requirements for an article there - violating the very good Wikipedia "principle of least surprise". Keep. Thryduulf 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So why not have a soft redirect? bd2412 T 22:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

2015 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.

---

CNN

I recreated this with the def: Cable News Network: a U.S. TV channel.

The entry was deleted multiple times without process so I'd like to sort this out via a new RFD; the last one (Talk:CNN) was in 2007. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, per long-standing practice of including initialisms of company names. Driven by WT:CFI#Names of specific entities (enacted entirely via votes) or WT:CFI#Company names (placed to CFI without a vote, having no consensus per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names). --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Renard Migrant: Does not WT:CFI#Company names in effect say company names should be deleted regardless of whether they are initialisms? If it does, you might see my point that the current text of CFI should not be applied as a rigid rule. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per WT:CFI#General rule. _Korn (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep since it's an attestable initialism. Different from e.g. Discovery Channel, which isn't. Equinox ◑ 19:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep as initialism. Purplebackpack89 20:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Kept, without opposition. There is no reasonable prospect of a consensus to delete arising at this point. bd2412 T 13:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)