Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Bilski


 * 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   redirect to In re Bilski. JForget 21:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Bilski

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Bernard Bilski is the first-named inventor on a patent that was the subject of the In re Bilski case at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals last year, currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Bilski-the-person has no notability whatsoever apart from this case. This is about as clear as an example of WP:BLP1E as it gets. There is no coverage of Bilski-the-person other than as related to Bilski-the-case. The article on the person has no information that is not already present in the article on the case. I redirected, but that has been reverted. TJRC (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —TJRC (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC) t

Normally I would agree that this article should be deleted for the reasons stated above. Originally, however, it was set up as a redirect to fixed bill. This caused confusion among readers so I created a stub in hopes of attracting more information about the inventor. --Nowa (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to In re Bilski, as the present article gives no additional information.   DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like BLP1E to me. If the individual is notable apart from the case, the assertion isn't made in the article.  Therefore, Redirect to In re Bilski. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with a redirect to In Re Bilski, is that it ignores the most important accomplishment of Bernard Bilski, which is the invention of fixed bill energy pricing. This is notable apart from the current case before the Supreme Court that bears his name.--Nowa (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that that's notable apart from the patent case. If that were so, every named inventor on a US patent -- and there are thousands annually -- would be inherently notable. TJRC (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a Google News Search on Bilski for articles that do not mention the patent case.--Nowa (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That search yields seven articles over a 20-year (1990-2009) period; three of them are company press releases. Which of the other four are you relying on to establish notability? TJRC (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect as there is no coverage specific to the individual. Notability to come perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It may make sense to consider as well for deletion or redirect the second-named inventor, Rand Warsaw, and their company, WeatherWise USA. --Edcolins (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To tell you the truth, I was planning on AfDs for those as well. I didn't want to waste my time on them if this one had gotten shot down, though. TJRC (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not at all notable. No sources say it is. Cynof G  avuf 12:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.