Deletion of Extention basin

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 #The right way to get things you or your friends made up into Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT)

Comment: File:Symbol keep vote.svg|20px The two scholarly articles Google pulls up and the ones in the article seem sufficient for  and . The promotionalism has apparently been corrected, just needs some work
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)