Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atmospheric Generated Water Wildfire Prevention System


 * 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. Favonian (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Atmospheric Generated Water Wildfire Prevention System

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Recently patented invention, with no indication whatsoever of notice by the world at large. Article seems to have been written by its inventor and, judging by the writer's contribution list and talk page, is making concerted efforts to promote himself and his work through Wikipedia, with no real evidence that he is worth such attention. See here, here, here and here. CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as it stands. The links are no help - one being a scan of a patent application and the other the main page of a hydrology wiki. The gadget needs a much more catchy title (reminds me of Leonard of Quirm if it's to succeed out in the world, and we need more detail of its operation and current notability if it's going to succeed here. I hate to cast a damper (pun not intended), but so long as you're not trying to patent a perpetual motion system (without a fully working model), almost anyone can patent almost anything so long as it's not already on record. Only perpetual motion has to be actually demonstrated. Peridon (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello -   - I am Malachy McGreevy. First, this is open sourced and free shared. This is for all the world. I am writing to ask why copyrighted material, shared freely on creative commons should be deleted. True, I am the inventor of the Atmospheric Generated Water Wildfire Prevention System, and, well, I happen to feel that the Atmospheric Generated Water Wildfire Prevention System is a significan leap of consiousness for humanity. From before the existance of hominids, wildfire has existed on earth. It pre-exists humanity. Therefore, we as a species evolved subject to wildfire. As a matter of fact, every species in existance on the face of the terrestrial earth has evolved subject to wildfire. This is the first claim made that wildfire can and will be bounded and demarcated. This isn't science fiction. For the first time in the history of the existence of mankind on earth, humanity will no longer be subject to wildfire; quite the opposite. Mankind can and will now determine where wildfire will be allowed and will not be allowed to occur. This is big stuff. This is an evolution of science. This is the reason that I feel inclusion of this legitimate and worthy. This will save lives.Malachymcgreevy (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment OK. First, read WP:SOAPBOX and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not here to promote anything. We are here to record things in an encyclopaedia. Your invention may be the best thing since sliced bread. But we wouldn't have recorded Sliced bread until it had become widespread enough to be noted, and/or had received coverage and reviews in reliable sources WP:RS. If one of us had tasted it and found it nice, and decided that it was very convenient - no, that wouldn't have been enough. That would come under Original Research WP:OR. Which is precisely where you come in. This is your invention. It has a patent application filed - not granted yet. As I commented above, patents may be granted for almost anything - they are not notable in themselves. Our policy on promotion applies as much to ideas as businesses, and as much to charities as to online sellers of Viagra. We wish you luck (although I do note that wildfire is a necessary part of the natural regeneration process in certain ecologies - and that there are some places where people simply shouldn't build houses), but we cannot help you to promote it. When it becomes of note, someone will post an article, with reliable sources. And please do take note of my comment about the name - Atmospheric Generated Water Wildfire Prevention System may be descriptive but is not the sort of thing to trip off the tongue. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated note, can we all start using pretty colours? It makes this discussion look much nicer. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I must find out how to do that.... Peridon (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Limited Response

Not that the comment on the nomenclature offended me or anything, that title is just to be precise. I am intending to term the practice of the art as "Hydro-Pyrogeography" Copyright Malachy McGreevy. This is an open-access article of terminology and nomenclature distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. (Hydro-Pyrogeography Copyright Malachy McGreevy. This is an open-access article of terminology and nomenclature distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Malachy McGreevy coined the term Hydro-Pyrogeography;Copyright Malachy McGreevy. This is an open-access article of terminology and nomenclatre distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Malachy McGreevy conceived of the term Hydro-Pyrogeography. Copyright Malachy McGreevy. This is an open-access article of terminology and nomenclature distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.).Malachymcgreevy (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete. No indication of notability. Perchloric (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - While I can find sources and coverage of this article, they are all not independent of the subject. Therefore delete per WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability yet I'm afraid, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Good luck with the invention. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.