Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microgrant

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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. No valid reason for deletion was cited, and the keep arguments are overwhelming in both strength of argument and weight of numbers. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microgrant

Improper use of the term; "Microgrants" is trademarked to the non-profit Microgrants (see http://www.microgrants.net/index.html). Common law trademark rights are established through first use in commerce on 10/26/07. Verity50 (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably speedy; this isn't a reason for deletion in our deletion policy, and the article seems to be a valid stub. If anything, it could be transwiki'd to Wiktionary. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although improper use of a trademark is not explicitly listed in the deletion policy, Wikipedia should not allow improper use of a trademark; additionally, this reason for deletion is analogous to copyright infringement, which is a valid reason for deletion. Verity50 (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote by the nominator was disregarded in closing.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I unPRODded this with the rationale that this is a regular word/concept in extensive use and not trademark (the reason provided by the AfD nominator during PROD nomination) and also added one ref. The nomination appears to be Pointy as the noms only edits ever have been to delete this particular article. Also, if you check the USPTO application status, you'll find out that no final decision has been made on the trademark (and I checked before unPRODding). That said, as I mentioned in my unPROD rationale, this can also be merged to Microcredit, but that's not for this AfD as I don't believe it's in good faith. And by the way, the article is Microgrant, while the trademark application is for Microgrants. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The USPTO has currently refused the application for Trademark (subject to reconsideration), per this note on the letter mailed out with the app (doc available at link above) - The applicant seeks to register MICROGRANTS for “Providing Monetary Donations to Low-Income Individuals.” However, “microgrants” (or “micro grants” or “micro-grants”) is a common term used to identify small donations made for charitable purposes. - SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as information is verifiably not copyvio.--Talain (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speed Keep. Well-documented in reliable sources: [1] shows that the use of the term went back WELL before 10/26/07. I doubt that trademark would hold up in court...and that's irrelevant to this discussion anyway, as the term was widely used before the trademark even came into being. Cazort (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, aside from anything else, we have articles on trademarked topics. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep as nominated without any basis on policy whatsoever, and, for that matter, with assertions that seem to be contrary to the actual facts. The article needs watching to make sure that any claim for trademark status is presented in the context of it being only a disallowed claim. DGG (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2009 (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.