Talk:Open Specification Promise

Open Specification Promise
Not dictionary material (also plural, which looks wrong anyway). SemperBlotto 16:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Would WT:BRAND apply to this? It is not strictly a brand, but its commercial nature would seem obvious. I could imagine it being used in a way that warranted entry. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It might become entryworthy if it gets used legally, but I'd bet against it now. OTOH, OSP is already in use and could possibly allow the full term to meet one of the Pawley idiomaticity criteria. DCDuring TALK 16:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * GNU General Public License seems comparable as a "brand-like" term. I don't think they are suitable for a dictionary. Equinox ◑ 17:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not dictionary material. DAVilla 12:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, ditto. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gone Conrad.Irwin 08:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)