Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octrooibureau Vriesendorp & Gaade B.V.

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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Octrooibureau Vriesendorp & Gaade B.V.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could be copyright violation. Author explained on the Dutch deletion page (AfD log) for the 2nd of July 2010 that the text of this article was "not by me" but taken from a 1933 "jubilee edition" (i.e. a book). I suggest you wait to see what happens to the Dutch version (nl:Octrooibureau Vriesendorp & Gaade B.V.). This Dutch version was initially nominated as "promotional" and "neutrality disputed". ErikvanB (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject to any copyright issues, which may require this to be stubbed. This would appear to be a firm with genuine historical significance. This would appear to be the deletion discussion on nl:. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. The creator of the page now claims to have permission to publish material from the book on Wikipedia and has promised to send an email to the OTRS team as soon as poss. --ErikvanB (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article. No historical significance. No significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society or history. Has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, i.e. sources independent from the subject (the 1933 booklet is a primary source). See WP:CORP and especially "Depth of coverage". --Edcolins (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS. Permission has been received from the copyright holder of the book to use this material on Wikipedia. Evidence of this can be found here. OTRS ticket number 2010070510010288. --ErikvanB (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for relisting the debate to generate a more thorough discussion. I have also added links in Talk:Patent and Talk:Intellectual property to the same end. --Edcolins (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historical it's interesting how patent rights created a new profession. Nethertheless it requires more independent references and should be linked in patent attorney#History. Promotional phrases can be deleted and the number of todays employees is irrelevant. --Swen (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How could this reason "Historical it's interesting how patent rights created a new profession" support keeping this particular article? The notability claim was not "the first patent agency ever". The notability claim was "... oldest, still active patent agency in the world ..." and was only supported by a primary source. Since extraordinary claims require reliable, independent sources, I have removed this notability claim. --Edcolins (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments. I have brought the English version into conformity with the Dutch version, based on comments that I received on both versions. The article now features independent links and any non-balanced phrases have been removed. Rmelchior (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic major firm in their profession. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 17 July 2010 (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.