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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:12, 29 December 2005

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)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 16:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only use I could find was patentjock.com --Pboyd04 16:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete search engine results conclude this article is non-notable. Ajwebb 18:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)]][reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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.

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 * 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... {{unsigned|24.196.237.72}}
 **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]].  --[[User:Quarl|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'' term called "sockpuppets" for those who post under different names or "jump in" on deletion wars is quite laughable.
+**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.