Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doing business as
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Kubigula (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing business as (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
WP:DICT. This appears to be an expanded definition of a phrase. Probably better transwikied to Wiktionary. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, article is much more than a definition, giving equivalents in other dialects of English and discussing the necessity and legal ramifications of d/b/a. --Dhartung | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a legal term widely used and defined by examples in common law. It can be sourced better. Bearian'sBooties 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per both above. As is, the article is already far more than a dicdef, though it requires sources. Although improving it is out of my league, I'm sure someone with expertise in the area could help expand it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to trade name. Bobby1011 01:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as this is a legal term. (It is also not the same thing as a "trade name".) Reswobslc 04:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The term "trade name" generally refers to products rather than companies, so it is best kept separate. (Example: muriatic acid is a trade name for hydrochloric acid.) –radiojon 05:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well I don't know how it works in other nations, but in Australia you would never hear the phase "doing business as". A company is said to be "trading as" or "operating under a trading name". Bobby1011 03:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- reply In the US, "DBA" is used as a noun. I own a business and I got a DBA for it. Here is an example of a form one might fill out here in the US to get such a thing - which is an alias for a legal entity, not a trademark or product. it most definitely deserves its own article. Reswobslc 08:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we tend to butcher the language in the U.S. anyhow, which is how DBA can be a noun (and "google" a verb). I would be okay with moving it to term more recognized throughout the world, and "trading as" seems fine. However that term risks confusion with "trade name", so I think the current setup is more clear. –radiojon 06:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- reply In the US, "DBA" is used as a noun. I own a business and I got a DBA for it. Here is an example of a form one might fill out here in the US to get such a thing - which is an alias for a legal entity, not a trademark or product. it most definitely deserves its own article. Reswobslc 08:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is a significant legal term of art, and much more than a definition (if any article that defined its subject had to be deleted...). — xDanielx T/C 10:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should confess that I suspect bits of this article may be misleading, but it could just be that my own understanding is slightly awry. I'll look into it. — xDanielx T/C 10:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.