Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lens


 * 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 and redirect to Patent Lens. It seems like a redirect was proposed and not contested so implementing. As for notability, it looks like consensus indicates the sources don't discuss the topic enough to establish notability. Also, while the dissemination of free knowledge is part of our remit, we have policies of what topics we cover and without sources they cannot be reliably met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Lens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Obvious WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG in that it heavily relies on primary sources and yet no source can be found. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Question / confused - delete The (almost) SPA who created this blanked the whole article replacing it with UDP and COI and Advert, but the NOM then reverted and brought it to AFD.  Why was it not just speedied?      There is some confused discussion on the talk page, indicating edit conflicts?  Regardless there is far too much reliance on primary sources, and almost no IRS in the article, and none that I can find quickly, so fails GNG.  Aoziwe (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's difficult to find any reliable sources. The product is apparently new and there's already a page for Patent Lens which describes the replacement with The Lens succinctly enough. Until there's more meaningful content, I don't think this needs its own page.Luminum (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Patent Lens with no prejudice against deletion either. The Lens doesn't appear to have significant coverage (though it is hard to get a specific search term), but being an iteration of Patent Lens gives a bit of a case for redirect until/if The Lens gets more coverage. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. the Lens database serves nearly all of the patent documents and is free. The platform provides a number of excellent resources to navigate patent data. The Lens is substantially different to its precursor PatenLens. The Lens resources are unique among tools/resources available elsewhere, which assist in analyzing complex patent data.
 * The Lens page has its place alongside of the pages created to describe similar resources such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIZ_Karlsruhe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derwent_World_Patents_Index, which are proprietary patent resources and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espacenet, which is also free. Agree that secondary sources have to be added as, for example, those similar to those listed below, which discuss (or indirectly demonstrate) the importance of having tools to freely and meaningfully navigate the difficult patent data, the course to which the Lens, it seems, is dedicated. A number of the sources below discuss the Lens: Zanga, D., Capell, T., Zhu, C., Christou, P., & Thangaraj, H. (2016). Freedom‐to‐operate analysis of a transgenic multivitamin corn variety. Plant biotechnology journal, 14(5), 1225-1240. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pbi.12488/full Southan, C. (2015). Expanding opportunities for mining bioactive chemistry from patents. Drug Discovery Today: Technologies, 14, 3-9. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1740674914000304--WindsorForest (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC) — WindsorForest (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The first source only gives a passing mention as being used in the methods. The second mentions Patent Lens in passing too. This is not the depth of secondary coverage needed for an article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly for looking into the references I suggested and your interest and time. I agree with your suggestion and proposed a couple of others, as eg. Oldham, Paul (with contributions from and under the coordination of Ms. Irene Kitsara ) (2016) The WIPO Manual on Open Source Patent Analytics ( https://wipo-analytics.github.io/index.html#authorship). Thank you so much again for your advice.WindsorForest (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is passing mention yet again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment There are now two WP:SPAs involved in this AfD or article and a third account that has only edited one article other than this article.   Aoziwe (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Only few Wikipedia pages are at present in existence, which describe free services/databases such as Espacenet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espacenet and Google patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Patents. The Lens is another free patent database and offer in addition to the content, which to some extent is similar to that available via Espacenet, also patent information analytical tools, which are not available elsewhere, such making it an excellent complimentary service/database to Espacenet. Espacenet Wikipedia page has attracted over the years a reasonable number of views. Since the Lens page creation, there has been increase in Wikipedia Espacenet page viewing https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Espacenet|The_Lens, likely, due to the discussion about the ‘fate’ of the Lens Wikipedia page and also Espacenet mentioning on the Lens page. Thus, this example alone shows an interest of Wikipedia users in knowing about these free services/databases serving patent information. Certainly, more editorial work is required to make the Lens page up to a high standard of Wikipedia pages, but the matter of a discussion on improving the Lens page is a rather different one from the one about deleting it entirely. Supporting and making the world aware of the free to use patent database with interesting and useful analytical/viewing tools, I believe, is essential into effort to make the world a better place and give free access to the information, especially to such as how to make things and improve processes, that the patents are about.WindsorForest (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe, that the Lens Wikipedia page shall be retained. In the form the page is now, it is very much a ‘matter-of-fact’ description of this important service/patent database. Thera are numerous Wikipedia pages for proprietary services including databases, which also ‘serve’ patent documents such as SciFinder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Abstracts_Service, STN International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIZ_Karlsruhe, Scopus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopus, Web of Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopus, among others…
 * You're allowed to state your rationale, but you're not allowed to vote more than once. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 14:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ++ 14:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2017 (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.