Talk:Continuity IRA

Continuity IRA
I hope our proper noun CFI will cover organizations. In the meanwhile, this needs attributive-use citations. DCDuring TALK 22:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At the very least, this should survive inclusion as an abbreviated or informal name of the organisation. Its full term in Continuity Irish Republican Army.--Dmol 23:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 630 Google book hits for the exact phrase. Keep SemperBlotto 07:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * RfV is the other page.
 * No one has yet even seriously proposed that organization names be added to the other encyclopedic content already here. Attributive-use citations, then, please. OR why not just include all attestable proper names? I suppose that they are much more within the capabilities of our contributors than other words. DCDuring TALK 10:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I proposed some stuff like Bloc Quebecois and Labour Party for deletion last year, and they all passed for no consensus. That said, I favor deletion here. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As DCDuring points out, we don't have rules for this (that work). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I say, treat this like a brand name. I highly doubt this will garner three citations across three years using the name without providing context. bd2412 T 19:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC) moved to RFV. -- Prince Kassad 00:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

RFV
From RfD. Needs citations that meet the company name CFI. -- Prince Kassad 00:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does it need to meet the company name CFI. It's not a company, it's a terrorist organisation.--Dmol 10:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Applying such a standard is a sensible approach to avoiding encyclopedic content in a dictionary. Political party names, like brands and company names, are similar in potential for spam as well as encyclopedic content. Not-for-profit spam seems as bad as any other kind to me. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV is not a place where you should be pushing your yet another deletionist invention. You have BP and RFD for the purpose. The term exists; there is nothing to attest. --Dan Polansky 14:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This does not belong to RFV: This is not a company name, and even if it were, there is no voted-on regulation for company names. The RFV question "is this attestable" is clearly "yes". You may try to push it through RFD, where you can vote "delete". --Dan Polansky 14:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't say this too often, but I agree with Dan Polansky. Brand name of who? Company name? How is this a brand name more than say, Dublin or Belfast? --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dan Polansky, you are clearly not familiar with our CFI. Please read CFI. -- Prince Kassad 15:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All this says is "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested.". It says nothing about terrorist groups and the like. SemperBlotto 15:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Prince Kassad, I know of the unvoted-on paragraph on company names. What I have written still holds: "... there is no voted-on regulation for company names." --Dan Polansky 16:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals mentions the Red Cross, which is the unofficial name of various affiliated organizations (if I'm not mistaken). So we have the name of a company noninclusible, and the unofficial name of various affiliated organizations inclusible. This seems to fall in between those, though closer to the being the name of a company, as the abbreviated official name of an organization. (Technically, a company, in one sense of company, but I'm not sure whether that's the sense meant in the CFI.) If it comes to a show of hands, I say to exclude it per the company-name rule, based on the two points that (a) it technically is a company and (b) even if that's not the sense of company meant in the CFI, an organization is similar enough to a company to be governed by the same rule. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Criteria for inclusion is not terribly well phrased, but I take it to mean that company names aren't included, period. (More precisely, I think it's saying that if a company name is also a family name, then that's included; and if a company name is also a common word, then that's included. So we include as a surname, and  as a common noun, but we don't include them as company names.) Therefore, the statement that it "Needs citations that meet the company name CFI" seems like another way of saying "Needs to be deleted after a month", because there simply is no such thing as a citation that meets the company name CFI. Right? It would be like listing a word here as "Needs citations that meet the protologism CFI", or "Needs citations that meet the NISOP CFI." —Ruakh TALK 19:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no principled reason for treating this encyclopedic organization differently than any other. bd2412 T 19:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed as uncited. - -sche (discuss) 18:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)