Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Jacobsen v. KAM Detailed Patent Issues


 * 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Robert Jacobsen v. KAM Detailed Patent Issues

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Appears to be a WP:POVFORK from Jacobsen v. Katzer. Jminthorne (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It will be a new article related to patent disclaimers, which is of general interest. After 2 hours it is hardly appropriate to delete articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonkawonka (talk • contribs) 03:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and Discuss back on the talk page of Jacobsen_v._Katzer. This article is a fork of Jacobsen_v._Katzer after similar content was not allowed back in the main article. These changes from the JvK article should be discussed there, and if there is no consensus to include them, they should not be included. Certainly creating a new article because of that is not warranted and is non-neutral. If Wonkawonka wishes to contribute to a general interest article on patent disclaimers, we have Disclaimer (patent) already, where his contributions would be welcomed. Using this article for that purpose, given the title and focus on one case, is not appropriate. Arakunem Talk 15:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy and discuss at Talk:Jacobsen v. Katzer to reach a consensus on what, if any, content should be merged into that article; at which point the userfied version should be deleted. TJRC (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article will be modified to talk about Disclaimers (the disclaimer you cite is only the EPO, and not relevant to this article when it is completed) as it relates to Subject Matter Jurisdiction as it relates to prevailing parties under U.S. law. When the article is completed, should take 1-2 months, we should discuss merging it into another forum if appropriate.  Until completed it does not seem appropriate to jump to conclusions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonkawonka (talk • contribs) 20:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I was going to copy your comment on the article here, but I see you have already made a similar one. Regards. Jminthorne (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * With the title the article currently has, it will be very misleading to expand the scope beyond that single case. See WP:COATRACK for the guidelines on that kind of thing. You'd probably be better off working on the draft in your userspace until it is ready, rather than leave it in this current state which is mostly a copy of a section from the main case article. Arakunem Talk 23:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and discuss per Arakunem. A clear POV fork and salvageable content should be discussed before merging. ukexpat (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Recommend deletion. Article is a fork of disputed POV from the Jacobsen v. Katzer. Jacobsen v. Katzer is itself suffering from severe problems with POV, see Talk:Jacobsen v. Katzer. The authors and editors of article under discussion are accounts that have only made contributions to this article and the original Jacobsen v Katzer article. There is evidence of sock- and meat-puppetry in both articles.  This includes the WonkaWonka account, which was "JMRIadvocate" until a name change after the owner of the JMRI trademark objected.  Further, the article content is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. It is predominantly opinion.  Some of the legal opinions expressed have no grounding in fact or law.  Several quote to e.g. the MPEP misrepresent content and case law.  This was disputed on the Talk:Jacobsen v. Katzer talk page. Changes were made there, but multiple undo's by the editors of this page and redo's by their authors ensued.  This page was created shortly after. That lends credence to this page being a fork due to inability to get opinion on another Wikipedia page  Hstimson (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The content is being modified, as indicated, to a full article. Updating the title is a good idea too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonkawonka (talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 June 2010 (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.