User talk:February2012

Welcome!

Hello, February2012, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as US Patent 5477238, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of US Patent 5477238


The article US Patent 5477238 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Article about a patent; there's no article on the object of the patent.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "KeyScan Inc"
A page you created, KeyScan Inc, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how it is important or significant, and thus why it should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for companies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. MacAddct1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 16:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
MacAddct1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 17:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

KeyScan Inc
Hello there, what I would recommend is starting a new page on KeyScan Inc here: Special:Mypage/KeyScan Inc That way you can continue to edit and work on it without fear of it being deleted. When you feel it's ready for Wikipedia, you can easily transfer it over to the mainspace. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 14:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Macaddct1984, took your advice and set up new page. Would it be possible for you to review and comment? Thanks --OR 22:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it still may fail the test for notability for an organization. At the moment you have a scattering of reviews for one product and a lawsuit against the company that was thrown out. The article also reads a bit like an advertisement, using some non-neutral words like "innovative" and "This results a space saving device with increased functionalty, thus streamlining and shortening paper handling process." All this sounds like a review of the product, rather than a mere description of it. Overall, I afraid you'll have a difficult time establishing notability. (You can reply here, I'll check your page for changes) -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 15:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also took a look; the PC mag review is good enough to pass speedy deletion, but the question is whether it would survive AfD. And the comments above about promotional wording are correct. As for the others, I'm moving here my comments from my talk p. And  the references need to show the title of the source, as well as  the title of it, so people can immediately judge the  reliability.


 * (OR 05:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC))
 * (OR 05:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC))
 * (OR 05:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC))
 * (OR 05:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC))
 * (OR 05:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC))
 * (OR 05:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC))
 * (OR 05:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC))
 * (OR 05:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC))

Comments:
 * 1) incidental mention of the product. Useless as a ref.
 * 2) a full review, but unless the product is specifically aimed primarily at the legal market, a review in a purely legal journal like aba newsletter has relatively little authority.  But usable.
 * 3) minor 1 para  review; they have been sometimes used, but have little weight.
 * 4) A full clearly independent review in PC Mag. Such reviews by itself goes very far to showing notability . With another such, I consider it shows it.
 * 5) Minor 2 para  review.The title on the p. was "Keyscan KS810 – World’s First Keyboard With Inbuilt Scanner !". It doesn't currently mention "award"
 * 6) The link didn't work, but searching found it at the same site.  Inc. reviews can be a good source, but this is a minor 1 para review
 * 7) not usable. You would need reviews in news sources to show the case was significant, not just that the attorney listed it on his CV. (I think he did because he did think it significant, but that's a very indirect argument)  DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for your advise Macaddct1984, Erased the “advertizing” language but still kept the word “novel” as this is the language to show “new” -that certain invention does not fall into other already known categories or products. When for example in image scanner certain types of scanners are mentioned such as hand held scanner or in input device computer keyboard is solely typing device, the integrated keyboard and scanner is not even though it provides multiple ways of input at the same time through single compact device. The wording “integrated” seems like no brainer but it really isn’t. Multifunction Printer or All-in- one printer is a valid article while it features all the functionalities that exist in the imaging keyboard such as Scan /Fax /Email/Copy/OCR/ Document (local, network & cloud) Storage features/functions. See Lexmark ; ABBYY; I.R.I.S. Group

Additional facts: On 1996 Compaq, NMB and Visioneer had such product released to the market but had to withdrew from the market due to KeyScan patents then pending (computer Business Review Compaq for some reason the CBR link is blacklisted  and in http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NMB+and+Visioneer+introduce+scanning+keyboard+to+OEMs+and+The...-a018397325

The product which is based on the mentioned inventions has indeed gained significant independent coverage through the past years (some of them cited and, if needed or recommended, can be erased).

What else can we do to have this articled? --OR 19:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)