Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Model Mugging
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. MBisanz talk 02:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Model Mugging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Advert for self-defense training program, with single self-sourced reference. May also be copyvio (cut and paste copy of this page), but vague assertion of copyright permission (for different text) given on talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481 12:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep very well-known program [1],[2],[3], [4]. Take a look at the long list of articles from major newspapers that have mentioned it: [5]. This is a highly notable program. Edit if necessary but keep the page. JJL (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Super Weak Keep. The article as written reads like a promotional brochure for this program. The term "Model Mugging" appears to be a trademark for a specific product. Note that all current cites point to either the product or the web site that has probably trademarked the product. Suggest re-writing the article to remove the blatant plugs and refer to the sources listed in the justification above. FYI, the trademark "Model Mugging" pre-dates 1973 when it originally expired as a trademark. It was re-activated and registered at the USPTO in 1988. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but edit as necessary to address real NPOV issues. The existence of a trademark does not in and of itself constitute a reason to delete an article, otherwise we'd have to delete the article on Coca-Cola. --Joe Decker (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Update: Also, please note that I have a conflict of interest as I was formerly, but am not at present currently, a volunteer at an Impact chapter that teaches the techniques described. --Joe Decker (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment,
There's a self-declared conflict of interest by User:Joe Decker who !voted above. Not making an accusation, just pointing it out.Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- You are correct, I should have pointed out the conflict-of-interest, I've updated my own comment here. Thanks for addressing this without rancor. --Joe Decker (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. Thanks for clarifying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, I should have pointed out the conflict-of-interest, I've updated my own comment here. Thanks for addressing this without rancor. --Joe Decker (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2008 (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.