Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-English generic and genericized trademarks


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete. Whpq's point is cogent, though it may not have been fully understood. Per WP:BEFORE, alternatives to deletion should be exhausted before an article is brought here; and since the nominator explicitly stated they would not object to a merge, AfD may not have been the best place for this discussion. NAC— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  01:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)'''

List of non-English generic and genericized trademarks

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I am nominating this to save myself from going into an edit warring, there are several reasons why. As I have stated here that because none of those entries are sourced, I will had made a warning that unless all these are sourced, I will merge that list to the general list for WP:VERIFY reason, which is the first reason of this AfD as none of these was sources. I have attempted to point this out on that talk section linked but nobody bothered to make an objection within some said weeks therefore it means I am entitled to merge it. But some user came and recreated it with sources, which brings me to the second reason why for this nom, a large majority of their entries made very little differences to its English counterpart, apart from the language, which brings me to the third reason that Wikipedia is not a translation guide.

On the other hand, I will not object this to merge to the general list as most of these have reliable sources. Donnie Park (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems to be the type of collection of information that does not meet WP's standards for an article. Sorry I can't come up with the exact wording for the policy that would apply.Borock (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Although the nomination is made in good faith, the timing couldn't have been worse. The history indicates that in the past month, someone has finally been making an effort to add sources and citations, after years of this being nothing more than a bulletin board of OR.  A month ago, there were no cites at all .  Normally, I might say "why now?", but I don't think that the nominator would have been aware that someone was busily upgrading this.  My feeling is that if an article is in the process of being verified, that's what we want to encourage.  Lord knows that we have plenty of articles that are kept because they "could be" (but never are) rescued.  Someone's giving this one CPR, it hasn't flatlined yet. Mandsford (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The sourced entries could always find a home on that general list. Donnie Park (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am finding difficulty in finding an encyclopedic purpose for such a list.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  19:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Essentially, a genericized trademark becomes part of the vocabulary of a language like any other word, after being coined initially for business usage. As with portmanteau or acronym, there are some linguistic creations that are more readily explained by reference to examples rather than trying to go strictly by a definition.  List of generic and genericized trademarks is a good example of a list that started rough, but evolved into something more encyclopedic over the course of time.  Mandsford (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to the other list and transwiki to wiktionary as an appendix, or something that can be broken out into individual entries, since genericized trademarks are words. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - AFD is not Dispute resolution -- Whpq (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, lets face it, this nomination is not a Dispute resolution, also what is the point of keeping this list as all it does is nothing but a partially unsourced collection of generic trademarks in other languages, which can be transferred to the main list. Donnie Park (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A merge does not require any article deletion, and in fact requires an article to be kept to maintain contribution history. -- Whpq (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I fact, I tried to merge this but it ended up being reverted to its unsourced state a number of times, even if these entries have sources to it, it makes no difference to its general counterpart. If your decision was to keep, what have that list got that is worth keeping, nowt, why, Wikipedia is not a translation guide. Donnie Park (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So if you are having a dispute with a merge with other editors, then it should be taken through dispute resolution. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say that list worth saving whether it make absolutely no difference to the generic list or not, I'm sorry but keep is not the decision there. Donnie Park (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.