Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patent jock (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0 [ talk ] 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Out of all the votes cast here, the ones that were actually valid were 10 DELETE votes and 3 KEEP votes, two of them being marginal as Jhyancey and Patentgeek have only edited articles related to this discussion. There were 3 subsequent keep votes (one as NO REDIRECT) signed by Jhyancey, those were discarded. All IP address votes were discarded. Before anyone cries foul, that includes the IP that voted delete.

Patent jock
Neologism or hoax, i.e. patent joke... Google doesn't show any evidence of widespread use. I have the strong feeling that this is a gross hoax. The result of the previous vote was "no consensus". Please do revise your opinion. The burden should be on the author of the article to prove notability. --Edcolins 16:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 16:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the only use I could find was patentjock.com --Pboyd04 16:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete search engine results conclude this article is non-notable. Ajwebb 18:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * DO NOT Delete Patent Jock is a real term, and is not a "gross hoax" as asserted by Edcolins. Indeed, I first learned of this term while studying law several years ago. Please also see previous deletion attempt for evidence of usage. As for notability, please re-read this page and note that "widespread usage" is not required for so-called notability. For example, I know nothing about "Action Directe", but it received a wiki entry (See: Edcolins). This means that just because one does not know about a wiki entry that it should be slated for deletion. As for the results of a internet search, this means nothing. Just because the results of an internet search engine does not produce a plethora of results, does not mean the term is not well-known. It just means that google does not list a page using this term. Also, no "burden" is required under wiki deletion policy and if one is required, it was satisfied in previous deletion attempt. Jhyancey 19:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)]]
 * Delete Never heard of such a term.  Jurisnipper
 * Keep it already survived one AfD vote what the hecks it doing back here?! Surely we should be concentrating on new stuff not just rehacking old ground? Unless this is an attempt by the deletionists to get there way by throwing it back here ad nauseum till they finally get it deleted........not that I would suggest such a thing..."G"... Jcuk 21:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do NOT Delete Never heard of such a term? How many of you have heard of omphaloskepsis (meditation while gazing at one's navel), gamp (a large umbrella), ferruminate (to unite; solder), effulgent (shining brightly), pelmatogram (a footprint), jentacular (pertaining to breakfast), ecophobia (fear of home), ultrafidian (ultracredulous; extremely gullible), karimption (a crown, a mass), or savate (fighting with the feet).  I guess if we delete this term, then we should delete many other words and phrases that people have "never heard of" from older dictionaries and encyclopedias.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any of us are omniscient enough to know everything about everything.  We should be asking patent agents and patent attorneys whether they have heard or use the term, not whether Joe Schmoe off the street has heard of the term.  --Jfredericks 21:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I take the view that Jfredericks is likely to be a sock puppet (contribution s) and that his/her vote should be not be taken into account.--Edcolins 07:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable unverifiable recent neologism, hoax. We're not saying "I never heard of it"; we're saying "we can't find evidence that anybody ever heard of it".  --Quarl 21:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete Well, if all you are saying is "we can't find evidence that anybody ever heard of it," then you haven't read the prior discussion where Jhyancey and Patentgeek (providing a couple of sites) indicated that they know that the term is used. Or are they (and the sources they site) considered nobody? --Somebody 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.237.72 (talk • contribs)
 * You are right, I don't consider meat puppets and sock puppets as reliable sources. I did check the websites cited as a sources; patentjock.com has no content.  --Quarl 22:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And the other link to Baker Botts LLP, one of the more prestigious law firms in the country, carries no weight? Ouch!  Hope Jhyancey and Patentgeek don't mind being characterized as puppets... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.237.72 (talk • contribs)
 * It mentions the phrase in passing but there's no way to tell what it means. So the phrase is still unverifiable.  P.S. there's no need to create multiple accounts to create the illusion of wide support -- such votes don't count.  Almost by definition, anybody who has no prior contributions and suddenly starts supporting another user on an AFD is a meat or sock puppet.  See WP:SOCK.  --Quarl 23:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, now we lower ourselves to accusations. I am the same person who has posted the last two "anonymous or unsigned" entries, as I have not created an account on wiki.  Of course, by your name, perhaps that's what you do best...  Sorry, but the irony in creating a new and 'unverifiable' term called "sockpuppets" for those who post under different names or "jump in" on deletion wars is quite laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.237.72 (talk • contribs)
 * Even if you don't have a user account or choose not to use it, you should sign your comments. If you are implying that becuase my name is superficially similar to the English word "quarrel" that I am quarrelsome, please read Civility and No personal attacks.  --Quarl 23:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The administrators who make decisions on deleting articles know very well what sock puppetry means, so there's no need to accuse me of inventing the term. Indeed this page full of sock puppetry is laughable.  --Quarl 23:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I wasn't accusing you of inventing the term... its just funny that a potentially created and unverifiable term has made it onto wikipedia, while the phrase in question is under attack as being unverifiable.--24.196.237.72 23:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I take the view that 24.196.237.72's vote is likely to be a sock puppet (contribution s) and that his/her vote should be not be taken into account. --Edcolins 07:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking evidence of importance, but having abundant evidence of sockpuppetry. Note to anons: sosckpuppetry is a great way to ensure deletion, keep it up. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but clean out the POV stuff ("rare skill and extraordinary intellect" "most Patent Jocks are formally trained and some Patent Jocks study at the Franklin Pierce Law Center"--sheesh). rodii 23:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Changing vote, see below.
 * KEEP NO SOCK PUPPET HERE--What is the goal and purpose of wiki? As a regular wiki reader and user, I think one of wiki's main purposes is providing information to increase knowledge of all. This is exactly what the Patent Jock entry does. How many of you before reading the Patent Jock entry had any knowledge about this subject matter. While the term is well-known in patent attorney circles, this entry conveys this information to all of wiki land. On another, as the main contributor for Patent Jock, I have solicited any assistance from sock puppets, nor have I engaged in that practice. For all of you urging deletion on this article, please see previous post and in particular read the baker botts cited article. (See it here: http://www.bakerbotts.com/9/infocenter/publications/Detail.aspx?id=98609148-a306-4faa-8b42-1f0e376f15d0) Jhyancey 23:34, 29 December 2005 UTC
 * That page (as I explained to the other puppet) doesn't provide enough context to verify anything about the phrase 'patent jock'. If I were to guess I would say you got lucky that some law firm's website happened to have that phrase indexed by Google.  Another idea is you have a conflict of interest in having your phrase be "more official" since the registration of patentjock.com on 2004-06-22.  Even if it weren't a hoax, it is non-notable; we don't need "copyright jock" and "trademark jock" and "intellectual property jock" and "divorce jock"  --Quarl 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The vote signed by Jhyancey is a contribution by User:69.25.80.1, which is likely to be bad faith sock puppetry (given the comment "NO SOCK PUPPET HERE" and the previous vote signed by Jhyancey above). Should not be taken into account. --Edcolins 08:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I voted "weak keep" last time with the reasoning that this term might be so specialized that traditional sources may not be good enough. There was a link to a law web site in the previous AfD discussion I remember.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's the very same hyperlink as is given immediately above. Have you read what is being cited as a source here?  It is a news report about various court cases that mentions "patent jocks" and "copyright folks" in the same breath.  Would you have an article on "copyright folk" on the basis of it?  That article is using the word jock as a colloquialism.  It is no evidence whatsoever that there is such a concept as a "patent jock", and gives the clear impression that nothing other than patent attorney is meant. Uncle G 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to patent attorney per rodii.  howch e  ng   {chat} 06:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The article cites no sources. I, like two of the editors in the original AFD discussion, can find no sources.  The article's author, when asked for sources, points to a news report that uses jock colloquially, and that provides nothing whatsoever to support any part of this article; and to an empty web site that appears to be a site for a patent attorney to advertise xyr services under the trade name of "Patent Jock" (notice "Our Rates").  Given that, and the promotional tone of the article, it seems that this article's purpose is to mis-use Wikipedia as an advertising platform for a patent attorney who styles himself a "patent jock".  The article is unverifiable, original research, and an apparent advertisement. Delete. Uncle G 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep While the discussion has been interesting, puppets aside, I repeat my earlier posting that I am familiar with this term. I don't know about the rest of the wikipedia users, but I believe the strength of wikipedia is to provide everyone with descriptions of terms that are not only common, but also those that may be somewhat rare and used in certain circles.  Otherwise, this tool is useless and fails.  I may not be familiar with what terms an astronaut or garbage man uses, but I do know patents.  I have worked in Boston, Atlanta, Los Angeles and New York.  In each of these locations I have heard patent practitioners use this term in same fashion as the description provides.  Just because a websearch provides minimal sources should only be A factor in deciding if this term is a neologism.  Baker Botts is a reputable and well-known patent powerhouse, and they used this term in 2002.  And I find that just because the author failed to define the term "patent jock" in his article to be a ridiculous argument.  One skilled in the art, ahhm...a patent jock, understands this use usage as should a lay reader.  I find jyancey to be on point, as is Jfredericks.  Do not delete.--Patentgeek 01:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Personal testimony of pseudonymous Wikipedia editors is not enough. We require sources here.  So far you have not only not provided any but also now stated that you find it "ridiculous" that they should be required.  If you don't share our principles of verifiability, then you will find another web site elsewhere a better fit to your needs.  You could try putting some content on that empty one that I mentioned above.  Uncle G 02:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I take the view that Patentgeek may be a sock puppet (contributions) and that his/her vote should be not be taken into account.--Edcolins 07:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * WEAK KEEP - I know this doesn't actually verify the definition of patent jock, but it DOES show that it is used within the industry. See http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/11/what_five_thing.html, where Dennis Crouch (one of the "notable" patent attorneys listed in the wikipedia listing of "patent attorney") uses the term patent jockey.--24.196.237.72 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I take the view that 24.196.237.72 may be a sock puppet (contributions) and that his/her vote should be not be taken into account.--Edcolins 07:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote after reading here and thinking a bit. I believe "patent jock(ey)" is a real term, but don't think it's worthy of inclusion here. What distinguishes "patent jock" from garden variety Patent attorney? I think it's just the term, not the concept, and while that may be of interest to Wiktionary, it's not relevant here. An encyclopedia needs to provide information on concepts. Someone might, I grant, occasionally search this place for patent jock... So: Redirect to patent attorney. rodii 03:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to patent attorney I support Rodii’s suggestion of a redirect to Patent Agent/Attorney. “Patent Jock”, as defined in the article, appears to be a skilled patent agent/attorney.  For example:
 * By definition, all patent attorneys/agents are registered with a patent granting body, such as the US patent office.
 * Patent attorneys/agents are skilled at getting their clients patents. Some are certainly more skilled that others.  Very skilled ones receive promotions in corporations, make partner in law firms, or have successful solo practices.
 * Patent attorneys/agents can generally recite portions of patent law from memory.
 * Patent attorneys/agents have historically been in high demand by both government and private industry.
 * Patent attorney/agents come from diverse backgrounds. Most learn their skills from working under the guidance of more senior practitioners.  Most also take formal training courses, such as those provided by the Franklin Pierce Law Center.
 * Patent attorneys/agents work with their clients to distill the essential features of an invention and draft claims accordingly to build a strong patent portfolio that meets their clients' business needs.
 * Many registered patent attorneys are also accomplished patent litigators.--Nowa 04:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

KEEP NO SOCK PUPPET HERE--What is the goal and purpose of wiki? As a regular wiki reader and user, I think one of wiki's main purposes is providing information to increase knowledge of all. This is exactly what the Patent Jock entry does. How many of you before reading the Patent Jock entry had any knowledge about this subject matter. While the term is well-known in patent attorney circles, this entry conveys this information to all of wiki land. On another, as the main contributor for Patent Jock, I have solicited any assistance from sock puppets, nor have I engaged in that practice. For all of you urging deletion on this article, please see previous post and in particular read the baker botts cited article. (See it here: http://www.bakerbotts.com/9/infocenter/publications/Detail.aspx?id=98609148-a306-4faa-8b42-1f0e376f15d0) Jhyancey 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reference to the Baker Botts article and also I thank you for the initial effort you put in composing this article. As someone who has had his own articles marked for deletion, I understand the initial anger of having your efforts tagged as perhaps being “not worthy” of inclusion in Wikipedia.  It appears to me that you’ve put a good faith effort into this article in an attempt to make Wikipedia more useful to the general public.


 * That’s one of the reasons I’m recommending that “patent jock” be a redirect to patent attorney.  At least according to the Baker Botts article, it is a term that’s used as slang for at least patent attorney/agent or perhaps any other person with an interest in patents.


 * The article, for example, states:


 * While the nation’s patent jocks eagerly await the Court’s decision in Festo, the copyright folks can start clearing space on their fall calendars for Eldred v. Ashcroft (01-618)…


 * It appears that “patent jocks” is used as slang for patent attorneys/agents just as “copyright folks” is used as slang for attorneys specializing in copyright law.


 * Do you have any objection to a redirect? --Nowa 14:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * NO REDIRECT You "deletionists" just do not understand. I will re-post patent jock again in the future after preparing additional support to satisfy the desire and craving to remove from wiki a useful entry. For those of you supporting Keep and Redirect, thank you very much, but please take note that only a select few patent attorneys ever make it too Patent Jock status. It is not a slang term, rather it is the highest level of competency all patent attorneys strive for. I will keep entry alive in my sandbox for those who wish to contribute to this useful entry. Jhyancey 15:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)]
 * And you really think that helps your case? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This looks like a bit of self-promotion to me. What's so special about a third-tier law school like the Franklin Pierce Law Center except that Jhyancey graduated from there?   Why is it so important to establish Patent jock as a separate term when one sentence in the Patent attorney article would suffice? I'm sorry, counselor, but you just haven't made the case that your term is really that notable or distinguishable from other classes of patent attorneys; all you've done so far is (increasingly heatedly) assert that. (I'm not a deletionist, by the way. I started out voting keep, but you have actually persuaded me the other way.) rodii 16:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I will keep entry alive in my sandbox for those who wish to contribute to this useful entry. Jhyancey,  I think that would be a good idea.  --Nowa 18:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yo "Just zis", the wiki cause should not be about winning or losing and fighting over entries. If the "deletionists" do not take the time to understand the term and assert it's a "gross hoax" then so be it. The purpose of the entry was to edify you and every other wiki user about Patent Jocks. Have you ever heard of Judge Giles Rich, P.F. Federico, Herbert Schwartz, The Telephone Cases, or Doctrine of Equivalents? Patent Jocks know much about these terms. Thus, the purpose of this entry. Jhyancey 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - No Redirect I'm changing my vote slightly to "Delete - No Redirect".  I maintain "delete" since I've not seen a preponderance of evidence to indicate that "patent jock" is either a formal or informal designation that is commonly aspired to by registered US patent agents or attorneys or the patent agents or attorneys of any other jurdisdiction.  I change my vote from redirect to "no redirect" in respect for the original author's assertion that "patent jock" is not slang for patent attorney.  --Nowa 18:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I also was temporarily inclined to change my vote to "Redirect" since it appeared patent jock(ey) might be slang for patent attorney. We delete articles as "non-notable neologism" every day which are far more verifiable and less vanity than this.  I maintain my Delete vote and recommend the author of the article copy it to his user page until he can build a credible case for the phrase.  If the author is a lawyer, or knows lawyers, it should be easy to build a credible case and survive AFD next time.   &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 00:10Z 


 * Delete This lengthy discussion has provoked far more heat than light, but it seems clear to me that even if the phrase is used, it is not of sufficient currency to merit its own article, and in the single case presented as evidence of its existence, it could be an on-the-spot invention by newswriters. And there are enough sockpuppets here to fill a locker room. D e nni &#9775;  04:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak/Delete This wiki term is less about patents and more about the term "jock." I'm a patent attorney, and I have heard the term used in conversation, but only in the same way one would call a Washington staffer a "policy wonk," i.e., someone who's really into a particular intellectual subject, and measures his prowess according to their knowledge in that field. List under "jock"? --Phlaemenbicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.231.134 (talk • contribs)
 * No vote This link was posted to a patent law board, presumably to draw support for the article. However, patent attorneys are generally too smart to bother with such things as the foolishness that is the wikipedia community.  Baseless accusations of being socks is second only to baseless accusations of POV.  Baseless accusations of being a hoax is a new one to me, but I gave up on this place a long, long time ago.  Patent attorneys have both law degrees and technical degrees.  As such, they tend to adopt techie terms -- such as "jock" (see the jargon file.  That being said, the article, in its current form, is crap.  Mentioning Franklin Pierce is pure self-promotion as it isn't even one of the top three, as reported by U.S. News & World Report.  Not all patent attorneys are jocks, only the ones who (1) know caselaw in and out, (2) have a huge patent grant rate, and (3) deal primarily in patent preparation.  I have never heard the term applied to a litigator, as stated in the article.  Patent prosecuters (of which I am one) are geeks and patent jocks are the geekiest of the geeks.  But what do I know, I'm merely a POV sock perpetrating a hoax.  71.129.147.6 00:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * how long must this go on? lets get on with it and delete it, must we waste any more time and resources on this useless entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.104.28 (talk • contribs)
 * this article sucks, doesn't it? even Donald Chisum would vote against this, but who is Just Giz, and what does he/she do during free time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.70.190 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, or at most redirect... seems slang, and from the debate I've not seen a single source for this thing. --Raistlin 23:35, 5 January 2006 (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.