Talk:Paul Lerner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article was nominated for deletion on 27/01/2007. The result of discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Notability of in re. Zahn

Deleted the term "seminal" in reference to in re. Zahn. It is cited in one chapter (1500) of the MPEP, in two places, for the same purpose. In the thousands of pages in the MPEP, the word "Zahn" appears 3 times -- twice in Chapter 1500, and once in the MPEP. Thousands of attorneys have argued cases before the CAFC, and hundreds these cases have minor references in the MPEP.

In addition, the notability question is about the notability (WP:N) of the subject (i.e. not his works or accomplishments), as established by "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." I do not see a single independent non-trivial published work on the subject of Paul Lerner. Emcee 19:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

How is this person notable, bearing in mind WP:BIO? --Harris 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

He authored many books. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Are these (two) books well-known? I would be nice to have more information on this. Thanks. Like Harris, I am not totally convinced that we ought to have an article on this person. --Edcolins 23:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are well known, and published by a respectable publisher, John Wiley & Sons. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It would be nice to have independent reliable sources mentioning that the books are indeed well-known. Just for verifiability. --Edcolins 00:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There are some reviews at http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471273295,descCd-reviews.html from other people in this field. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The link you provided is broken. Please do not remove the notability tag unilaterally thanks. --Edcolins 21:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The link is working. Try Clicking here. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the removing of the tag, this was after providing the references on this talk page. I guess you were adding the tag unilaterally as well... --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, my mistake then. --Edcolins 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also an interview with the Wall Street reporter. You can read the transcript at http://www.patentclaim.com/Media/MediaMentions/PaulWSR.htm . --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Another review of the book by the Syracuse Science & Technology Law Reporter (SSTLR) can be found at http://www.law.syr.edu/students/publications/sstlr/framesets/archive/Books/S05-Holden-Licensing.pdf --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also Tokyo TV Channel 12 has featured a documentary about his company in May of 2002. [1] --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And a few more reviews at http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471209422.html --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

His book is quoted twice in testimony given by Pat Choate to the The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission [2] --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo deletion

Photo was incorrectly tagged as a publicity photo. In addition, no evidence of copyright ownership was provided as required by the tag.

From Wikipedia:Publicity_photos:

Most photos that are found on the Internet are not publicity photos. Publicity photos found on the Internet typically have the following characteristics: * They are found in a section of a web site called "media kit", "press kit", "press", or something similar * The images are available in high-resolution TIFF versions (upload a low-resolution JPEG version to Wikipedia though) * There is text on the site asking that the photographer be credited and/or there is licence text permitting reproduction for certain purposes (usually using them to sell products is prohibited)."

I've removed the link from the article and tagged the photo for speedy deletion.