Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerobic granulation

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The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 00:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobic granulation

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

This is acknowledged to be a process developed only at Laboratory and pilot scale. No notability demonstrated . All refs are primary research papers. I have concerns that it may be just trying to get publicity but it is certainly not yet ready for a WP article. If and when it gets into commercial/ municipal use for waste-water treatment, then I would be happy to see it revived. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full-scale references are added (including pictures of full scale plants). There are many full-scale (Nereda) references already in operation worldwide. At the moment there are several plants in the construction phase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twtpeeters (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ENTIRE article is plagiarized from "The Global Encyclopaedia of Environmental Science and Technology." There SHOULD be an article on this topic, but the current one is utterly unacceptable. I have no idea how that means I should vote.PianoDan (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weird - I see what happened. That book is from the "Global Vision Publishing House," which appears to make a living binding and selling Wikipedia articles. OK, I have really no idea what to say on this one, now. PianoDan (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have followed PionoDan's link. The article as originally created[1] was lifted wholesale from the book starting at page 30, still in copyright. So, unless someone can remove all that stuff, which I doubt, the whole article should be deleted. As an oddity, Google says the book is called Philosophy of Mathematics as well as giving the proper title. Thincat (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC) I now see this article was created in 2008 whereas the "encyclopedia" was published in 2009. Something odd has been going on. Thincat (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Ghi#Global Vision Publishing House (publisher) I agreee the book copied WP and I shall remove the tag I placed in the article. Thincat (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea that the technique is only at the lab or pilot stage seems to be wrong[2] but in any case this is not relevant to deletion. I have found a book entirely on the subject[3] and a review article[4]. The proceedings of the conference mentioned in the article were published.[5] The article's editors have not understood the need for secondary sources. Thincat (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the latest references added on this Wikipedia: aerobic granulation. These include real data obtained from full-scale AGS systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.98.41.245 (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - I am content to withdraw the AfD nomination beased on the references now provided. However, the article remains in need of substantial clean-up to remove the primary sources and probably also the information on pilot scale and the long section on research findings - neither of which are encyclopaedic in Wikipedia terms. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still AfD nomination, please clarify — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twtpeeters (talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin so when I removed the template, a bot kindly replaced it!. I suggest we wait for an admin to wander by and sort it out. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Velella, Thanks for removing AfD. Snotbot, please clarify subsequent AfD addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twtpeeters (talk • contribs) 20:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snotbot, please reply on required adjustments. Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twtpeeters (talk • contribs) 08:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Generally when an AfD nomination is withdrawn and no one else has !voted "delete" the AfD is closed right away. Maybe no admin has noticed, or perhaps my struck out "delete" or confusion about copyright has caused difficulty. However, the AfD must be properly closed. It is no good just removing the tag from the article. Snotbot (a wholly automatic process) has restored things so the AfD can be wound up properly. Thincat (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what to do next to remove the AfD properly?Twtpeeters (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patience. Admins have many tasks and other things in life - one will be along sometime soon and the article is safe so please don't worry. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:36, 14 December 2012 (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.