Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Knight (patent agent)

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. (aeropagitica) 19:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Knight (patent agent)[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. He has filed a patent application for a storyline, but a patent is not granted yet. Anybody can file a patent application. This is not recognized as exceptional and this does not make the applicant notable, even if the invention described in the application is unusual. (This may be reconsidered if the patent is granted or if wide publicity is made in the literature about this type of applications for whatever reason). A report in one blog is not enough to make it notable. Edcolins 12:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. --Edcolins 12:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also past debates: Afd/Storyline patent and Afd/Plot patent. --Edcolins 13:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Feezo (Talk) 13:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to keep this article. Im not related whatsoever with mr. Knight but I found the articile very useful. Andrew Knight may be crazy and he may have failed - but he is a pioneer, and pioneers that fail also serve a purpose in history. r.bakels <a t> planet.nl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.20.42 (talk • contribs)
Delete In one way, Mr. Knight is extraordinary - he was crazy (or clever) enough to do something extremely stupid. This is not, however, the sort of feat that normally establishes Wikipedia notability. Iff he succeeds, then he'll deserve an entry, if only to explain why patent lawyers all over the country have started drooling uncontrollably. Xoloz 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has some weak notability, but not enough. (I'm off to patent the process of voting Keep and Delete on articles created in online encyclopedias...) Turnstep 16:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, he did this. Factiva throws up three stories (all in minor locations). With Xoloz, I think that it will be notable if he succeeds. Until then, not wiki-worthy, imo. Bucketsofg 16:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Plea from 81.207.20.42 notwithstanding... Deizio 19:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Also, I'm not even sure that, in and of itself, filing a new type of patent, even if successful, would be sufficient to gain notability. In any event, that doesn't change my vote, for now. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 00:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.