Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote Data Capture


 * 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   keep, rename to "remote deposit capture" and redirect to Remote deposit (non-admin closure). VG &#x260E; 13:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Remote Data Capture

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

Despite the title this article is about a narrow topic covered by a patent, and does little to establish it's notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG &#x260E; 20:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read the two newspaper articles linked from this article carefully, and it's not even clear even if they're talking about the same patent. The first article talks about a "remote image capture patent" by DataTreasury. The second article covers "remote deposit capture" but makes no mention of the patent or DataTreasury. VG &#x260E; 20:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete links do not establish notability. Seems like promotion. Clubmarx (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Move I added more citations, but apparently it's called "remote deposit capture." The (200,000+) sources you get from a google of "rdc banking" describe remote deposit capture as a disruptive technology for the banking industry. I just put up a stub because it's out of my area of expertise (I already messed up the article title, it's probably a good thing I stopped when I did). I knew the article was in poor shape, but I was hoping others would WP:Assume Good Faith and pitch in to strengthen it rather than just kicking it off the site. Maybe you're both from the banking industry and can attest that this "disruptive technology" claim is an exaggeration, or maybe you're lost like me, and we just need to get this article in front of those who can actually help it. Either way, it's obviously not mere promotion, or someone would've spent more than 5 seconds setting up the world's ugliest and least helpful stub. --Thomas B&#9816; talk 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In more direct response to VG's first point: I do not believe it is a narrow technology covered by a patent. This is outside my expertise, but I'm trying to read up, and I get the sense RDC is a generalized term for a class of technologies. RDC seems to cover any service which clears checks without transmitting their paper equivalents, but instead electronically with captured images of the original checks. The only article that discussed a patent did so because it was trying to warn banks that this group of technologies poses patent infringement risks, you might be using something you think is just a generalized technology in this area, when actually it is not. This would explain why "it's not even clear even if they're talking about the same patent," because they aren't talking about a patent, they are talking about a group of related technologies that emerged after the Check21 legislation permitting electronic clearing for banks. That's why the second article doesn't discuss DataTreasury, the company's not generally relevant. --Thomas B&#9816; talk 17:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At the time of AfD nomination the article was about a patent . User6985 has enlarged the topic by rewriting the article. VG &#x260E; 05:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * After the rewrite, this article treats the same subject as Remote_deposit, so it's redundant, and poorly titled. VG &#x260E; 07:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to remote deposit. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * delete as redundant. but don't redirect, as sources do not show this to be a n alternative name for the process described.Yobmod (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to make the same remark, the use of "data" instead of "deposit" seems confined to this Wikipedia article. VG &#x260E; 10:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to remote deposit. Is too specific (lacks specific secondary sources containing commentary about the subject).   Article is not sufficiently more than a definition/description.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to remote deposit. The subject might be expandable, but this sentence contains too little information to support a full article at present. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2008 (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.