Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tidal Irrigation and Electrical 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 as advertisement for non-notable technology.  Sandstein  18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Tidal Irrigation and Electrical System

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Advertisement Crowsnest (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The page has only links to own web-site, no reliable references, and had a prod nomination earlier today. Seems to promote some (patented) original research. Crowsnest (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Highly promotional piece for non-notable irrigation system thingy. Not everything that's patented is notable. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the originator of the page and have added links to all relevant sites and notations including the original patent. I can't see how the patent violates Wikipedia guidelines. The Tidal Irrigation and Electrical System is quantum leap in our ability to extract energy from the ocean and in my opinion should be represented here in Wikipedia. All of the information is true and verified in other parts of Wikipedia. I am new to this form of recording of information and was surprised to see in one "editors" comments that he felt that this patent did not represent something notable and therefore should be deleted. This is neither accurate nor in the spirit of an open encyclopedia. It's not as if by its inclusion other things must be left out. (AeguorAgricola (talk)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AeguorAgricola (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The patent in itself is not a problem, or violating WP guidelines. But, to my opinion, the main issues are: the fact that the article seems to advertise this patented concept by linking to the website for its promotion, has no reliable references (see WP:V and WP:OR, links to other Wikipedia articles don't count with respect to verifiability), and is not notable from an encyclopedic point of view, see WP:N. Further, you may have a look at WP:COI, to find out whether you have a possible conflict of interest. Crowsnest (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 *  Keep Additional comment I have now included a link to European Commission's Directorate-general for energy and transport in which the Tidal irrigation and Electrical System is an approved concept, that fulfills all scientific requirements. The link is however for a company "seavac" which is promoting the concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AeguorAgricola (talk • contribs) 16:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication of where this system is currently in use. Therefore no hint of notability. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 *  Keep Additional comment The project is indeed in the experimental phase but there are several renewable energy systems which are not currently in use and yet they are included in Wikipedia for example blue energy. The individual components of the Tidal Irrigation and Electrical System are all well understood and verified. That they will work in conjunction is common sense and is in no doubt. Of course, there will be some interference by one system with another, and the degree to which this will occur is unknown, but that will only be able to be determined on a case by case basis and depends entirely on which resources the operator wishes to generate. AeguorAgricola (talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete' it is true that Tidal power systems have a long history - as proposals-- and are notable--and consequently have an article, along with particular articles for some specific systems in specific places that have been implemented. This particular proposal, however, has no sources for anything resembling notability. DGG (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 *  Additional comment Except, of course, that it is patented. Patents are only granted if the science actually works and the idea is original and it is an improvement over existing designs which hope to exploit a principle. Are you saying that the US patent office isn't notable? Are you saying that you (DGG) know better about the science than the patent examiner or the scientists the European Commission's Directorate-general for energy and transport? AeguorAgricola (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Probably notable enough, but needs to be rewritten to remove advertising and to find neutral sources. Beagel (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 *  Additional comment OK, I have rewritten the article to take out advertising. Other sources seem thin on the ground.AeguorAgricola (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2008 (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.