Talk:Cisco
Add topicDeletion discussion
[edit]
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.
I created this entry before reading Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Company names. Although the company is obviously notable, the citation policy practically invalidates any citation that would support its inclusion. See iPad (deleted), Netgear (no entry), VMware (no entry). But see iPhone (included), HP (included) and Motorola (included). (Cf. Microsoft, where the company is listed in the etymology but the primary definition is “a company whose products are ubiquitous.”) 74.96.75.247 14:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. WT:COMPANY is not supported by consensus, as per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. Even disregarding the number of votes in the vote (as some editors suggest), I cannot see any real rationale in that vote for deleting company names; the voters do not explain why including company names is bad for the dictionary. One of the voters says that we need some rules or else there are going to be too many of them, but does not explain what is bad about having many attested single-word company names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the policy says "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." If you look at w:Cisco (disambiguation)#Places it suggests it is attested other than as a trademark, and would therefore pass. Note it just says 'attested', the place names don't have to meet CFI they just need to be attested. So it would seem to pass and easily too. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC). PS Keep obviously. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. The basic principle is that all words are includable. Trademarks are special, however, because anybody is allowed to create new ones. These new ones may be used only by the company itself, and should not be included in this case. Therefore, there should be strict attestation rules to check that the word is actually used. The rule I would propose is n (to be chosen) independent attestations not originating from the company owning the trademark or any affiliate companies, ads, people or companies working for the company. Furthermore, the company name or trademark should be something we can considered as a word, not only as a name (e.g. Société nationale des chemins de fer belges or names terminated by Inc. etc. cannot be considered as words, and should never be included). But Cisco is not only a company name, it's also a word. Lmaltier (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- RFD kept per consensus: 3 for keeping, 1 for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
From RFD. Needs cites meeting WT:COMPANY rules. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Three citations added. Thousands more easily available. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- As an exception to the principle that voting does not belong to RFV, keep as attested in the general terms of WT:ATTEST - Citations:Cisco. The WT:COMPANY "rules" is not supported by consensus as per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. Note that Cisco passed WT:RFD per Talk:Cisco. Absolutely no value is added for the dictionary user by removing this single-word entry that already has pronunciation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
RFV-passed. Kiwima (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)