Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trademark2.0
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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trademark2.0[edit]
This minor concept is already covered by the Web 2.0 article; the article content is also plainly incorrect – the tm controversy raises traditional tm issues, certainly not "emerging issues". Tuoreco 05:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Beg to differ, web2.0 promotes new business models which are quite different from conventional practices. If we use above explanation then there shouldn't be any category called web2.0 and one might as well club all that into bigger category of Internet. Granted its a minor concept but it may or may not be a traditional tm issue when applied in the context of user generated content site destinations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sociallabs (talk • contribs)
- Speedy delete. Just a lot of buzz words - no actual content. -- RHaworth 08:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In this new user-driven mobcracy do you guys allow any think time before hitting the delete button ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sociallabs (talk • contribs)
- Remember that there's think time before creating an article, too. Uncle G 01:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is totally pointless and should be speedily deleted 207.170.200.19 20:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 23:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not about the Web2.0 article. And where party X seeks to demonstrate or establish trade mark rights concerning any word or words (even "freedom of expression"), *in relation to specified products or services* (and sometimes, products or services which are in turn related to such products & services), and party Y uses that word or words without authorisation, it is a traditional issue - making this article mutton dressed as lamb. Otherwise, new substantive articles or content on trade marks are really thin on the ground and would have my diehard keep vote, for whatever that's worth. PS: thanks for the AfD nomination complete, bot (wouldn't mind the instructions on the relevant page explained a little more clearly for us less au fait). Tuoreco 10:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 10:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as dicdef, at best. Also, since "Web 2.0" is as yet a mere concept, I find the whole thing, as specious as it is, crystal-ballism regarding what the web may become. Tychocat 11:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - after reading the article I still have no clue what it is supposed to be --T-rex 23:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete could be listed for speedy deletion: nonsense in terms of WP:LAYOUT User:Yy-bo 21:18, 7 September 2006 (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.