Talk:WordNet
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Liliana-60 in topic WordNet
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Is this ever going to meet our CFI? Needs formatting, and probably moving to WordNet. SemperBlotto 17:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why is this even here? It's spam, pure and simple. It isn't even used as attributive. Delete. sewnmouthsecret 18:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've moved it and cleaned it up a bit. It's referred to in discussions here. It might meet RfV. Why is it in RfD and not RfV? DCDuring 19:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There are 600+ raw hits at g.b.c. the vast bulk of which seem to be for "WordNet" as opposed to any other orthography. Why would we delete it? DCDuring 19:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do we have any cites conveying meaning, rather than mention? Would we keep dictionary.com? sewnmouthsecret 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, I had not been applying CFI for proper noun. DCDuring 22:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea, EncycloPetey. DCDuring 22:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Wait a minute. There is no special CFI for a proper noun per se. This is not a company name or a brand name. Why does it need more than ordinary CFI? It looks just like Domain Name System. It's like IMDb and Oxford English Dictionary, except it's apparently not commercial. "dictionary.com" could be includable if it met CFI for trademarks or companies, AFAIK. Straighten me out on this if I'm wrong. DCDuring 00:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I agree with you, in that not being commercial can't hurt its chances, but as the name of a proper entity, it is a little up in the air. DAVilla 02:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have cites that seem attributive to me and independent of those directly affiliated with Princeton (can't say whether they are former students of Princeton profs.). WordNet is the prototype for many wordnets. DCDuring 04:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Looks compelling. I would vote keep if it counted for anything. DAVilla 08:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
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.
A specific software product (and, I would argue, therefore a "brand name"). Passed a lukewarm RFV in 2007; see Talk:WordNet. Equinox ◑ 23:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't WordNet as much a word as Wikipedia (from a linguistic point of view)? I would keep it. It's useful to be able to get information about brand names (especially pronunciation, but also, sometimes, etymology, translations, etc.) We should apply normal rules to brand names, except that I would add a requirement for a minimum number of independent attestations from sources other than the company owning the brand name. Lmaltier 21:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Probably delete, though I never really know where I stand with brand names. In a sense, they're words, but they're generally just made up to promote a product. A bit different from words that go back to Ancient Greek. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep unless this can be deleted via RFV as failing the requirements regulating brand names. The regulation of brand names is specified in this vote. Avoid deleting via RFD. --Dan Polansky 09:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
kept, no consensus. Doesn't seem to be a brand, so brand name criteria doesn't apply. -- Liliana • 17:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you say it is not a brand? Can anyone use the word? Is a business name or product name that is not a registered trademark not a brand under our "rules"? Is there something about an NGO that makes its product and service names beyond the reach of WT:BRAND? DCDuring TALK 19:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- WT:BRAND is poorly written, because it doesn't define what a brand actually is. Many people believe that only registered trademarks qualify as brands. Keep in mind that an RfV is still possible. -- Liliana • 19:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)