Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patent Process (United States)


 * 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. per Copyvio  MBisanz  talk 00:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Patent Process (United States)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod/prod2, removed by author. This article was initially prod'd for being a WP:HOWTO and potentially a WP:COATRACK for a legal service company (http://www.aplegal.com). The article is basically a dump out of articles from that site, and even though the article says they're posted here with permission, it still seems inappropriate. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article potentially violates WP:COPYVIO from, and . &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Article is informative and referenced on a basic, minimal amount. I don't get a sense of advertising or promotion of the article source site. It's a legitimate topic that condenses the patent process in a good and educational way. Each section includes outside references to other articles or government information. Would be inappropriate if an obvious shill, but as it appears to be unbiased and informative with references, I recommend keep. Danprice19 (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article is entirely ripped from sites such as this, this and this. Does that count for nothing? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - due to copyvio concerns (above), poor quality of writing and titling, lack of notability as a topic, the fact that it is something not really covered by encyclopediae etc. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 10:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, totally encyclopaedic as you guys like it that way.--hnnvansier (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: What? Can you be more specific? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keepis recommended because the copyright concerns have been affirmatively shown to comply with Wiki standards. The writing can be cleaned up and the subject matter is encyclopaedic. It also is notable due to the outside references such as USPTO and various university articles on the subject. For example, one reference to a US government Web site distinctly references the "patent process." This in itself makes this notable. It then goes on to list in typical government mishmash via various links everything that is stated in this article. This article puts all this together. We can clean the article up, but it should remain as it complies to all standards.Aardvark31 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC) — Aardvark31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * How-to guides are not encyclopedic. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Violates WP:HOWTO and WP:COPYVIO. It's not enough to simply say that you have permission from the copyright holder to repost the article; the copyright holder has to directly file a copyright permission by letter or e-mail which explicitly gives Wikipedia permission to republish it under an unrestricted license. If that isn't done by close, this simply cannot stay; and even if it is done by close, this is still a how-to guide, not a sourced encyclopedia article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment.svg|15px]] Comment - since this is actually a blatant copyvio, there is no potential for this to come out a keep (you can't !vote to keep a copyvio). Should it not simply be tagged CSD-G12, since that is a valid reason for speedying? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 21:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I put it up for AfD because I wasn't sure how to handle the bottom of the article where it says "This article is posted here with permission by Stevan Lieberman of the law firm of Greenberg & Lieberman http://www.aplegal.com on Saturday, February 28, 2009. The article comprises portions of an original article posted at http://www.aplegal.com/practice-patents.html." &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: For future reference, steps for that situation are set out at WP:CP. I have handled this one accordingly. Unless verification is supplied for this material, it will have to be deleted in seven days regardless of the merits of the subject. As an uninvolved administrator addressing copyright concerns, I am not forming any opinion on the merits of the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep so long as copyright issue is resolved, then article is encyclopedic enough to be salvaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danprice19 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: You already voted above. Also, the copyright issue isn't resolved - the article has been blanked until it gets fixed. And since the entire article is copyvio material and there wouldn't be anything left... what's there to keep? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Normally, I vote in favor of just about every WikiProject Law article or stub, but not in this case.  "How to" articles in the law are especially a minefield on Wikipedia.  A short section of basic procedure in a larger article might be appropriate, but not in this case.  Even ordinary lawyers must take a patent bar examination.  I would not touch this with a 10-foot pole. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 4 March 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.