Talk:Amtrak

RFD
"The name and service mark under which w:National Railroad Passenger Corporation does business." Because the entry doesn't even pretend to give the word a meaning and only names it as a brand. DCDuring created this recently, I suppose to make trouble or test the limits of the brand arguments. Equinox ◑ 21:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Trouble? People were making statements that WT:BRAND simply did not cover branded services and used [[Google]] as evidence. Who is causing the trouble? I didn't notice very many objecting to those statements, so I assume that there is tacit support for that position. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't support it. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like a single word, can host pronunciation, and has etymology; thus, the entry is capable of hosting lexicographical information that cannot be gained by combining lexicographical information of other entries. From what I can tell, CFI does not have any special treatment for service marks. --Dan Polansky 15:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This belongs at RFV, not here. But it's probably easily attested (not that I've tried). Keep and move to RFV if it's not easily attested. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * meet's wikt brand pretty obviously yo.Gtroy 02:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

moved to RFV -- Liliana • 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This has has no please to seek in RFV: The term is easily attestable: . --Dan Polansky 20:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

RFV 1
From RfD. Needs to meet company name criteria. -- Liliana • 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Amtrak" is attestable and this is RFV: I propose this nomination is withdrawn. Try RFD for "company name criteria", which is an unvoted-on and contested piece of CFI. --Dan Polansky 20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously verifiable as a word:, and "all words in all languages" takes precedence over anything else. SemperBlotto 07:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not so. It's a proper name. Not a word in a language.


 * With your reasoning, we'd have to include any utterance that's been recorded three times, wouldn't we? —Michael Z. 2011-12-14 18:00 z 

I was about to solicit input on whether the quotations in the entry met whatever standards are relevant, or not, but I notice that there is only one quotation in the entry. Before we can discuss whether or not the term passes RFV by having standard-meeting quotations, it needs to have three quotations, full stop. Will someone please add ones that appear to meet COMPANY/BRAND or whatever standard we apply? Then we can discuss whether or not they indeed meet that standard, and pass or fail the term. (An alternative is to delete this as uncited.) - -sche (discuss) 20:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added two more citations that appear to provide the minimal three required. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV 2

 * Previous discussion: Talk:Amtrak.

I've archived the old discussion, which had petered out anyway, to the talk page: I'm starting a new listing because our rules have now been updated (by the BRAND votes), and I think the new rules apply to this entry. In any case, this should be cited to the relevant standards (BRAND? COMPANY), or deleted as is long overdue. - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Kept. I don't care whether this and the other terms stay or go, and no-one has commented proposing that they don't meet CFI, so they're staying. - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)