Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extention basin

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. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extention basin

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

Article is original research / spam with blatant COI. The original version of this article, written by User:Ralph G. Mastromonaco, contained links to this paper by Ralph G. Mastromonaco which merely proposes the use of extention basins and to this patent filed by Ralph G. Mastromonaco. None of the other external links make any mention of extention basins. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extention Basins physically exist and are called such.

So - I figure, people may want to know what they are and they may go to Wiki for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralph G. Mastromonaco (talk • contribs) 21:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable thingee. See Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability, Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability, and Wikipedia:Notability. This invention is not even close to being notable by any stretch of the imagination. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under the notability criteria Einstein's theory relativity would not have been eligible when it was published - Similarly, it would take a reviewer knowledgeable in hydraulics to determine whether the Extention Basin is notable. If the detention basin is included in Wiki then the extention basin should be as well.

I added a reference to Extention Basin from the California Department of Transportation official stormwater manual. That seems to add just enough notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralph G. Mastromonaco (talk • contribs) 21:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have, as yet, no opinion on the article under discussion here, but would like to point out that, had Wikipedia been around a century or so ago, it would have been quite correct not to have an article on either of Einstein's theories of relativity immediately after publication. The theories only became notable when independent reliable sources had discussed them. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the Extention Basin is "green" improvement - too detailed to list reasons why here - as compared to the detention basins that wiki allows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralph G. Mastromonaco (talk • contribs) 21:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Possibly a mention in the Detention Basin article. I can't see that this has enough difference to merit a stand-alone. Peridon (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detention Basin is to Extention Basin as UNIVAC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIVAC_I is to Cray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray Ralph G. Mastromonaco (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not (yet) notable. Note to author: you say "Under the notability criteria Einstein's theory relativity would not have been eligible when it was published"; that is absolutely correct. Then you say "it would take a reviewer knowledgeable in hydraulics to determine whether the Extention Basin is notable." No: the point of the notability criteria is that we do not expect to have the expertise to make correct judgements about which new ideas are significant. We have a different approach - wait to see which ones gain independent comment and endorsement. That way we may be slow to pick up on the eventual winners, but we also do not have articles about the innumerable new ideas that go nowhere. See WP:NFT#The right way to get things you or your friends made up into Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two scholarly articles Google pulls up and the ones in the article seem sufficient for WP:V and WP:N. The promotionalism has apparently been corrected, just needs some work.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first of the Google Scholar hits is a patent application, i.e. a primary source that anyone can create, and the second is an accidental juxtaposition of these two words with punctuation between them. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. No evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources has been provided. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until other people begin publishing on it. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. It is a very good first contribution by Ralph G. Mastromonaco (talk · contribs). Is clearly a scholarly article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is doubting that the article is well-written and scholarly. The issue is whether it violates our policy on original research. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with detention basin, or possibly somewhere else. I read the article to say that an extension basin is an optimized retention basin. Not notable, and COI / Spam problems to boot. "http://www.extentionbasin.com/" is Mastromonaco's business. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:49, 16 February 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.