Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of trademarks using french nouns


 * 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

List of trademarks using french nouns

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Emotionally I like the idea, because it is fun. Intellectually this is not a topic for an encyclopaedia because it lacks notability. Fiddle  Faddle  16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello this page has just been created, and already proposed for deletion ... I don't think it's fun (at least not only). Actually there are equivalent pages for the inverse situation List of generic and genericized trademarks, but I have been looking for such lists everywhere for an article I'm currently writing on the hijacking of names, and could not find any. So please could you behold until you see how it flies, let me time to add content? Thanks --universimmedia (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment having further time elapse does not make ot notable, it simply makes it a non notable article where further time has elapsed. Wikipedia is not a miscellany. Fiddle   Faddle  16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this very constructive comment! --universimmedia (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Fiddle Faddle. Not notable - WP:OR required to create the list. Ansh666 17:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:OR. The intersection of two unrelated things "trademark" and "French noun" does not create a notable list. You could just as well have "corporate logos whose main color is blue" or any number of other combinations. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The appropriation of proper nouns as trademarks is a notable topic, and there might be sources that would enable an encyclopaedic article to be created. But I cannot see where this particular article is going, and like others I cannot see it succeeding. Trademarks in every country? At present it consists of two trademarks which are the property of French companies which are also nouns in French. But one was originally British, is also a noun in English, and brings us into the area of EU trademark recognition. Why France and the French language, and what is notable about the choice? If the topic is notable because there were for example court cases where domestic and international law had come into conflict, the list consisted of notable exceptions to a general rule, etc, then we could be getting somewhere, but the scope of the article would need to be narrowed and made explicit in the title. Otherwise is is just an indiscriminate list. At the moment, I cannot see it even being interesting unless further commentary is planned and then it would still not constitute a Wikipedia article. --AJHingston (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andrew for bringing constructive arguments to this discussion. Note that the article was created today at 16:11, and proposed for deletion at 16:16, 5 minutes later! This explains why the content is so poor, it was just starting!! Since, instead of gathering the said content, I'm answering this discussion ... I won't repeat here the answer to Fiddle Faddle you can read on my user page. I acknowledge the page discussed here is too specific, as well as the similar one I started for english nouns List of trademarks using english nouns, which should be deleted as well following the same logic, and hence the Category:List of trademarks using common nouns created for those lists (and others I was intending to add, but I understand I'd better stop) is to delete as well. But I won't surrender on the point that the topic itself, let's call it for now Use of common nouns as trademarks is notable and raises technical issues in information systems (as said in answer to Fiddle Faddle), legal issues and cultural/social issues (enclosures in the knowledge commons). The lists I started as separate articles could be included in such an article. How does that sound?--universimmedia (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How about, instead of first making these lists that seem nonsensical to anyone who doesn't know what you're thinking (which is everyone but you, by the way), you start with a page on the topic? Then, we can see the sense behind what you're doing, and you won't have to waste your time (and others', which is a plus too!) with these discussions. Just a friendly suggestion. Ansh666 22:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment There is nothing to assert nor to cite the notability of this topic. Nor can there be for your putative topic. One may as well create List of nouns used in the naming of hamsters. This is a topic for a miscellany, perhaps. For this encyclopaedia, not at all. Fiddle   Faddle  22:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR, non-notable topic. I'll second Ansh666's point: if there've been controversies, e.g. legal issues, concerning the use of common words in trademarks, then presumably there's been media coverage of them, giving them notability and making them appropriate subjects for a well-sourced WP article or articles.  Compiling an OR-based list of common words that may or may not have been involved in such controversies, in the hope that it can one day be incorporated into a real article, is a bass-ackward approach.  (Comment dit-on "bass-ackward" en français?)  Ammodramus (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK folks, j'ai mis la charrue avant les bœufs. For examples of sources for legal issues what about http://www.finnegan.com/CelloHoldingsvLawrence-DahlCos-StoreyvCelloHoldings/ or http://secureyourtrademark.com/can-you-trademark/common-words-phrases/, or http://hotword.dictionary.com/facebooktrademark/ --universimmedia (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that you undertook this in good faith, and as I said before the topic behind this is a notable one. But intellectual property law is an enormously complex area, and to embark upon it for a Wikipedia article would require good reliable sources, which these are not. Reported cases are useful as illustrations, but they should either be cases which are themselves notable because of the political or public debate that they generated, or be notable in a legal sense in which case there should be cited authorities for that. Wikipedia is not the place for an essay or the products of your own original research. Remember this is an international encyclopaedia. And you could not start from the present list. --AJHingston (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll bind by the Great Wikipedia Rules. I'll do my homework, find good reliable sources (whenever I understand what that means) and be back, maybe ten years from now. Go ahead and DELETE. This conversation was very instructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universimmedia (talk • contribs) 08:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete My biggest problem is how do we decide orange is a French word for this list purpose, and not an English one. This is a non-notable list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * See also Articles for deletion/List of trademarks using english nouns where there is a similar discussion. Fiddle   Faddle  10:17, 10 August 2013 (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.