Talk:Facilitated Application Specification Techniques

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Grush (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest. A previous page was written completely incorrectly. I coined the term in an article in 1985 and simply wanted this to be accurate. I've removed any promotional verbiage - please let me know what is offensive/incorrect/etc. All I want is the accurate listing of what the phrase means - Facilitated Application Specification Techniques - FAST - as it is from my article, was my product, and I have the trademark on it. There is no copyright on the material (the article is referenced only). I'm trying to work with you and correct something that was on Wikipedia that was totally false.


 * I've removed the material that was copied from http://www.mgrconsulting.com/index.php/gary-rush-mgr-consulting-facilitator-training-facilitation and simplified the rest. If you want to add modestly to what remains of the article, bearing in mind your conflict of interest, then please do, but remember that several other editors are now watching, and won't allow it to become the promotional effort that it was before. You should concentrate on adding reliable third party sources, else it runs the risk of being deleted through lack of notability. —S MALL  JIM   16:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I added the article reference - hope this works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grush (talk • contribs) 17:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Trademark
Is it really worth mentioning that "FAST Facilitated Application Specification Technique" was registered as a trademark? The filing was made in October 1985 and it was abandoned in July 1986. Thanks, LaMona, for adding the link, but http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:ggrryh.2.1 doesn't work as it refers to a expired session on the TESS system. To find the details again it's necessary to go to http://tmsearch.uspto.gov and perform a new Basic Word Mark Search. —S MALL JIM   20:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I say that the US gov't's lack of normal IT skills drives me nuts? They don't give a permanent link to the entry, but I got another one that I will try. However, I'm fine with dropping the topic altogether -- it was User:Grush who added to the article that it was trademarked, so I was trying to make that verifiable. Because it has lapsed, one could easily leave that info out of the article because it doesn't affect current use. LaMona (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that link works, thanks. I don't think mentioning a 30-year-old expired trademark adds anything to the article - certainly nothing towards showing notability. Unless anyone makes a good case for its retention in the next few days, I suggest it should be removed. —S MALL  JIM   22:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

COI
If Grush (or his IP) wants to continue to work on this article, he needs to find and add (or, preferably, use this page to request the addition of) some reliable third party sources to ensure it's not considered for deletion again. —S MALL JIM   22:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, due to his conflict of interest, Grush should not be directly editing the article. From what he has done so far, I don't think we can expect NPOV from their edits. LaMona (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, COI editing is "strongly discouraged", but since Grush is obviously an intelligent guy, I'm hopeful that he'll see the right thing to do (knowing that several other editors are watching). If he can be persuaded to properly expand and reference the article from the pretty useless stub we've had to reduce it to, it'll save others the trouble of doing the research, and will provide WP with a useful article – which will benefit everyone :) —S MALL  JIM   00:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * From what references I can find, it seems to me that FAST is really a subset of JAD, so I have redirected it for the time being. Deb (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)