Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alphanumeric brand name

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. I see a rough consensus against deleting the page. COI issues can be fixed by editing. Owen× ☎ 12:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alphanumeric brand name

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All brand names are alphanumeric in nature. This page serves no purpose and shouldn't exist. There is nothing unique or notable about alphanumeric brand names. Hukak (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems to pass WP:GNG. The purpose of the page is to report on this concept which has been discussed in reliable sources. Also, I'm not sure what you mean about all brand names being alphanumeric. Plenty of brand names don't include numbers, and it seems to me that this concept refers to brand names which include both letters and numbers. I have also added another source. The article probably should be rewritten to some extent to use a summary style; but I think it should be retained and the topic is notable.Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe rename to a list, which can still contain a little of the academic study of this, which is actually interesting that that even has been studied. Metallurgist (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rename or merge. I agree with the nom that all names are alphanumeric, some without numbers. The problem I see with this page is that after the lead, the contents are all about linking/adjusting the lettering so it appeals more to customers. This could be merged into Brand, although that is already long; there are some other possibilities in that area. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term as it appears in the sources refers to brand names with both letters and numbers. Therefore not all brand names are alphanumeric. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator appears to have misunderstood the topic, and the journal articles already included seem sufficient for WP:GNG. Astaire (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but I did not misunderstand. Alphanumeric characters are the set of characters A-Z, a-z, and 0-9. The term alphanumeric means the string contains only letters and/or numbers. It doesn't mean that it must be both letters AND numbers. Every single word in this sentence is alphanumeric. Perhaps the article should be renamed to 'Brand names with numbers in them" but the issue is that this topic is about as noteworthy as an article titled "Brand names containing the letter 'a'". There is a fundamental misunderstanding in the article about what alphanumeric means. Hukak (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Alphanumeric brand name" is the WP:COMMONNAME, as shown by the sources themselves.
As the term is used here, an alpha-numeric brand name is defined as a name that contains one or more numbers either in digit form (e.g., "5") or in written form (e.g., "five"). This means that alpha-numeric brand names include referential or nonsense mixtures of letters and digits (e.g., WD-40), mixtures of words and digits (e.g., Formula 409), or any of the preceding where the figure is written out in word form (e.g., Saks Fifth Avenue). Alpha-numeric brand names are also defined to include product designations where the numeric component describes a particular model, and the model number is used by the consumer to fully identify the product, such as the Mazda RX-7. doi:10.1177/002224299305700306

Alphanumeric brand names (ABs) include a mix of letters and numbers doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.6.1177

Alpha-numeric brand names include referent and nonsense mixtures of letters and numbers doi:10.1177/002224299305700306

Alphanumeric brand names (ANBs) consist of combinations of letters and numbers doi:10.1057/bm.2015.28
The article should not be deleted or renamed because you feel the word "alphanumeric" is being used inaccurately. Astaire (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source doi:10.1177/002224299305700306 says that "Saks Fifth Avenue" is an alphanumeric brand name. This makes 'OneDrive' and 'Five Guys' alphanumeric brand names, which is nothing unique or special. A recent edit removed "Saks Fifth Avenue" from the article because it was "confusing". Of the 7 sources, 4 have the same author. All sources are academic papers in journals and seems mostly like self promotion.

Doing research into this article history, it seems the article creator User:Alphaci is likely "Kunter Gunasti", since they created this article on the same day, added the name Kunter Gunasti in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kunter&diff=prev&oldid=540191538 . One of the sources on this article still contains a link to Kunter (see reference 6).

Based on my investigation, the author of the papers referenced in this article created this article to promote their proprietary research on the same day they also added themselves to wikipedia on the Kunter page. Their name has since been removed from Kunter.

I have to assume this article exists as a form of self-promotion for the source author. Hukak (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This makes 'OneDrive' and 'Five Guys' alphanumeric brand names, which is nothing unique or special Most brand names don't have numbers in them, whether they're numerals or written out in letters. Honestly I don't understand the objection here and it reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Whether you think it's "unique or special" or not, people have clearly treated it as a distinct concept.

Regarding the potential WP:COI, that is a concern and thank you for noticing it, but the article has been edited by multiple users since it was created 12 years ago. It does not read as overly promotional to me and the three sources not written by this person would be enough to meet WP:GNG anyway, so I don't see COI as a reason to delete it. Astaire (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources in the article show that this topic satisfies WP:GNG. If we're concerned about an author being cited too much we can just remove some of their journal articles. WP:COI alone is not a reason to delete an article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2025 (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.