Talk:Exxon

RFV discussion

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

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.

---

Ahh, to be in political Exxon? RFV for entire entry. But I'm sure that there's a policy being written up for it right now. Vote here.--Halliburton Shill 01:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This should probably have been posted on RfD rather than here. I would move to delete it. It's simply a company name, not applied to the product they provide in any normal circumstances. --EncycloPetey 02:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If an admin wants to move to RfD, I won't object.--Halliburton Shill 03:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the third sense. If you want to {{RFV-sense}} it instead, you can reinstate it. If you want to argue the other two, this should be moved to RFD. Otherwise struck. DAVilla 14:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Added to RFD, struck out here. --Connel MacKenzie 15:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

RFD

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Exxon

Undeniably promotional entry. Not used attributively, instead, only as a reference to the company. --Connel MacKenzie 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

delete. Name of company, and not used for the name of the product under normal circumstances. --EncycloPetey 19:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

delete. Even worse than Greater Manchester.--Halliburton Shill 23:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted - Basically thsi was spam, Greater Manchester, though is actually place!--Williamsayers79 10:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RFD 2

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.

---

Exxon

I request undeletion (keep AKA undelete). This company name was deleted via RFD in 2007 as per Talk:Exxon#RFD, but for wrong reasons, IMHO. I have no idea of the pronunciation, for an example of lexicographical information worth providing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence at Citations:Exxon of its being used in a way that conforms to WT:BRAND before I can support undeletion. In the meantime, I've added the pronunciation at w:Exxon. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Are there any limitations on what the meaning of a brand name can be? I can't see any in WT:BRAND DCDuring TALK 21:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Restore/Keep/Undelete: Per nom, and per the recent RfD keep of Mobil Purplebackpack89 23:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Restore/Keep/Undelete: - "all words in all languages" SemperBlotto (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  "SemperBlotto" is a word in a language as much as "Exxon" is. Equinox ◑ 11:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  I think you would have problems RfVing it. (though, amazingly, it gets 143 hits on Google book search) SemperBlotto (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  @SemperBlotto I'm guessing you're poking fun at mine and Angr's keep votes, and you actually want this to remain deleted. Why do you think this should remain deleted, especially since we recently voted to keep a similar entry? Purplebackpack89 18:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  Not at all. Exxon is a perfectly valid word, and we should include it. I have always been an advocate of "all words in all lamguages". Now, somebody reading those Googled books might want to know what "SemperBlotto" means; so maybe we ought to include it. But I'm not going to push my luck. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  Good to know. I always thought you username was SOP, though. Mine is. Purplebackpack89 21:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  "Mine and Angr's keep votes"??? I didn't vote at all yet. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Restored. bd2412 T 15:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC) {archive-bottom}}