Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gas porosity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. The article is about gas porosity, not about Patent 5684299. The term 'gas porosity' is an important one in petroleum exploration & production, and the phrase has many online references. Unfortunately, this article draws too heavily on a single primary source.

Original research is not allowed at Wikipedia because we are not the publisher of first instance. US patents are published elsewhere prior to use as a primary source here by the US Patent Office and other places. WP:PSTS outlines the appropriate use of primary sources, and clearly states primary sources should be used with care.

Since this article's creation, it has been revised a bit and there seems to be some good information that can be used in subsequent revisions. Pare it down to the bare bones and begin to rewrite it, or merge it with other articles on porosity. However, deletion isn't the answer in this case. - KrakatoaKatie 23:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gas porosity

Gas porosity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. This article is an almost word-for-word copy of a patent and therefore Original Research (how could it be anything else?). In addition the patent itself is non-notable - no ghits for Patent 5684299 other than patent sites, i.e. no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:NN. No other references are given to back up the assertions made in the article so no verifiability - the award of a patent doesn't mean it's good science. This is simply not how you write an article on this subject. andy 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, violates numerous Wikipedia guidelines. Might even be copyvio. AnteaterZot 19:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article has problem with NPOV and therefore needs to be rewrite, but I disagree with deletion. If the information in the article is a copy of published information (and the patent is published), it can't be WP:OR. Also, gas porosity is quite notable thing in petrophysics, and worth to have its own article. This article is about gas porosity and not about the Patent 5684299 solely. The user presented this article for deletion uses logic that if the source is not notable, that also means that the article can't be notable. I think this is wrong and dangerous logic to use. About copyvio, User:DGG explained that US Patents are public domain, and therefore there is no copyvio. Beagel 20:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment. A patent application must be regarded as OR unless it has subsequently become notable, or been peer reviewed. But otherwise a word for word copy of a patent application is a word for word copy of OR. If an article merely regurgitates a non-notable patent, without any significant alterations, additions or references it's simply repeating someone else's OR. andy 23:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - a patent is a primary source for an article about that patent. But if the content of the patent is used as an article in its own right then it's OR, just as it was when the applicant filed the patent in the first place. andy 23:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Has some somewhat useful information, but should be rewritten if kept--EJF 21:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I assume that a patent specification is public domain, so that no question of copy-vio arises. The patent is a published source. This is thus not WP:OR as WP uses the term. The article has several other tags on it, and we should hope that it will in due course be improved. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. On that basis any article that is a copy of OR published elsewhere isn't OR. How can something be its own source? WP:OR defines OR as "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories". That fits the patent. The article is a reproduction of the patent, which is of course published, so therefore it's not OR? That's a pointless quibble - the article is simply a copy of OR. andy (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2007 (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.