Talk:United Nations Organization

RFD discussion: September 2022–January 2023
This one is interesting. It is in OED, Collins and, less importantly, Dictionary.com. It is pretty transparently named, since it is in fact a united nations organization, unlike United Nations. Is the usage note in the entry interesting enough as lexicographical material to save the entry from being purely redundant to Wikipedia? What convinced even the proper-name-averse OED to include this? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. 1) Per lemmings, even the name-averse OED. 2) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland gets a free pass despite being transparently named; is in Collins and Macmillan. Thus, we do not intend to exclude all transparent full names of specific entities. The way our CFI is currently designed, we need to consider the referents, not just the names. And if countries get a free pass, a natural extension of that would be that large and important international organizations also get a free pass despite naming transparency. Similar cases would be European Union, OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (redlink), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (recently deleted), Warsaw Treaty Organization (recently deleted), and bluelinks International Court of Justice, International Maritime Organization, International Monetary Fund, European Central Bank, and European Free Trade Association. From a purely lexicographical standpoint, the case is not so clear, but this is no worse than the full name of U.K. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * RFD-kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)