Talk:Teepol

Teepol
--Connel MacKenzie 04:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Visviva 04:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam.--Dmol 12:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - it is used generically in the UK by mechanics etc as any detergent to rub into your hands to get rid of grease etc. SemperBlotto 12:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to strong keep - over 700 google book hits, many from scientific journals. SemperBlotto 12:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely remove company sense. Not being British I had never heard of this, but these and a smattering of Book/Scholar hits strongly indicate generic use to refer to certain detergent compounds. -- Visviva 12:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * After finally actually looking at the definition (!) I have rewritten it as a noun, and added a few citations. SemperBlotto 14:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The 1987 quotation is mention-only. You seem to be saying this is in widespread use in the U.K., but it would still be nice to have quotations that demonstrate the term meets CFI. :-) —Ruakh TALK 15:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that the term is (was?) used in the Netherlands. I know it from my undergraduate chemistry labs. Jcwf 16:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Παρατηρητής
 * Kept--Jusjih 20:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

RFV discussion

 * 

I don't think any of the three quotes meet the attributive-use standard for words that are trademarks. DCDuring TALK 20:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The 1993 citation is no good because the term is defined two pages prior. The 1984 looks okay in the limited view, but I have a feeling that it's referenced more exactly and we just can't see that. The 1987 borders on mention, and that alone could be considered enough to throw it out. DAVilla 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)