Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bo Muller-Moore

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. Consensus to keep is clear. I recommend starting a move request in order to decide what the title should be. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Muller-Moore[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E concerns; the only coverage is about his "Eat More Kale" slogan.

Eat More Kale currently redirects to Chick-fil-A#Advertising (after a previous AfD). That doesn't seem like a feasible redirect target for this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles in Time, The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, NPR, Adweek, etc. show that this is not your run-of-the-mill event. The Washington Post article states "The measure required a Commerce Department study into how large businesses use trademark laws against smaller businesses." That plus lots of other sources in the article demonstrate it had a lasting effect. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. As Clarityfiend has noted, and as is obvious from the footnotes in the article, Muller-Moore received substantial coverage at the time in the national press, and his response to Chick Fil-A is now cited in several books and articles about business ethics and trademark law, etc. So, I don't think notability is a concern here.

About the Eat More Kale article: I actually didn't spot it before making the Bo Muller-Moore article. Looking at it now, I see that at the time of the decision to delete it, (a) several of its sources were poor; (b) it had an unencyclopaedic tone (it was both too informal and too promotional for an encyclopedia article); (c) it was nominally about the Eat More Kale business, which was, in a sense, less notable than the case or than the proprietor; and (d) some of the accounts of the Eat More Kale case in books and articles about business ethics and trademark law either had not yet been published or may not yet have been available via Google Books or other sources readily accessible to Wikipedia contributors. So, while the AfD decision might have been reasonable in response to the article's state at the time, and the sources available to Wikipedia contributors at the time, the situation has now shifted somewhat, and Muller-Moore or Eat More Kale now seem to be an appropriate topic for an article.

However, I do think it should be just one article. Probably the best outcome would be for either:

Eat More Kale to be redirected to the current Bo Muller-Moore article, or
the current Bo Muller-Moore to be renamed to Eat More Kale and to be made to focus on the case rather than the person, with a redirect added from Bo Muller-Moore to Eat More Kale.

Either way, it might make sense to either regard this discussion as a sort of deletion review for Eat More Kale, or alternatively to put this discussion on hold while a deletion review is held re: Eat More Kale, based on the idea of incorporating much of the text and sources from the current Bo Muller-Moore article into a new Eat More Kale article. Zazpot (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for meeting WP:GNG. I see your WP:BLP1E and raise you one Lee Harvey Oswald. -The Gnome (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This whole article is a one event NPOV violation. Just because the liberal media is an echo chamber that hates anyone who stands up to their promotion of some ideas, which is why they have a irrational hate of Chick-Fil-A and a willingness to attack it at any turn, does not mean we should give undue space to this irrational coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and the moon landing was faked too!104.163.140.141 (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a copyright dispute. The text does not appear to take sides in the dispute; in fact, it offers a multitude of sources for the legal texts themselves that we can peruse and form our own opinion on the issue. There are no politics in this discussion. (More accurately, there were no politics until you, John Pack Lambert , brought them in.) -The Gnome (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When the governor of a state makes statements about a copyright dispute, politics clearly exist in the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Politics may be brought in but that does not affect the substance of the case, which remains a dispute about copyright. A subject does not lose its notability (the merit of inclusion in Wikipedia) because a politician makes a political case out of it! Otherwise, the content of Wikipedia would depend on the whims of politicians. -The Gnome (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I agree with the suggestion that it should be renamed to "Eat More Kale" and adjusted to focus on the "case" Jmertel23 (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This case is shaping up to be rather significant, and probably deserves to have its own article here. In sum, we should perhaps give to the article a title with the name of the case. And the slogan redirect should redirect to the legal case, rather than to Chick-Fil-A. -The Gnome (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and add redirect to Eat More Kale trademark lawsuit. It would be better, but I can't find an official lawsuit name such as Chick-Fil-A vs. Eat More Kale. The article has almost no biographical info on Muller-Moore - indeed, you'd be hard pressed to build any sort of an in-depth article about him using the identified sources. To counter the BLP argument above, I can write a lot about Lee Harvey Oswald using his media coverage, including documentaries. We can add the renamed article to this list: List of trademark case law. Also redirect "Eat More Kale" slogan to the renamed article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: thanks for your support for keeping the article in some form. About your suggested titles: AFAICT, there was, technically, no lawsuit between Muller-Moore and Chick Fil-A. Rather, Chick Fil-A seems to have attempted to control the outcome via two other mechanisms:

by filing an objection, with the USPTO, regarding Muller-Moore's trade mark application; and
by sending lawyers' letters to Muller-Moore, demanding that he stop using the "Eat More Kale" slogan and that he give up his business to Chick Fil-A (even though no court had ordered this, nor had any court found Muller-Moore to be in breach of any law regarding his slogan).

Their use of the latter mechanism seems to be the main reason why this incident is characterised, by several sources, as an example of a large corporation bullying a small outfit, as it would obviously have put Muller-Moore out of business. I would guess that if Chick Fil-A had simply filed an objection with the USPTO and left it at that, commentators might have merely characterised their actions as overzealous (because t-shirts are not Chick Fil-A's business, and fast food is not Muller-Moore's business, so the likelihood of consumers confusing the two businesses is minimal), but not bullying.

What makes the incident notable is that unlike other small businesses Chick Fil-A had approached in this way, Muller-Moore resisted both through the USPTO and through the court of public opinion, in such a way as to overturn the usual order of events, resulting in substantial coverage in the press, some coverage in academia, and a general re-thinking of how businesses should handle such issues. If you think the article should clarify that there was no lawsuit per se between Chick Fil-A and Muller-Moore, then I would agree, assuming a suitable WP:RS could be found to support the clarification.

I hope this comment was helpful (and apologies if you already understood all this and my comment was superfluous). Thanks again, Zazpot (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2018 (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.