Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buckinghamshire Incinerator

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, recreate when it's being built with Reliable sources showing it's notabilty. Secret ^account 23:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buckinghamshire Incinerator

Buckinghamshire Incinerator (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Page for a proposed facility in Buckinghamshire, the location of which hasn't even been decided yet. Giving it an article leads the casual reader to believe that it's an actual facility, which it is not. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The page has been prod'd in the past, and the prod was contested and not taken further. Roleplayer (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment The article makes no attempt to predict the future. It explains a proposed facility which is currently the preferred option of the council and is presently under wider consultation. Alex Marshall (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: there are two other articles for proposed facilities at Belvedere Incinerator and Newhaven Incinerator, which follow a similar format. I am not listing them for deletion at this time though will not rule out doing so in the future, based on the outcome of this discussion. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I think this reads more like a newspaper article than an encyclopedia entry. I have seen building proposals struck down in my local municipality, and while it may be relevant if there is public outcry and then it is built, right now it doesn't seem notable. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: The 6 G-hits don't include anything that would make this notable enough for an article here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL -- Dougie WII (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rework As the original writer of the article I accept it is a little brief on content and needs expanding. It has since been added to by an antiincineration group, which gives it a bias. I disagree with the comment that the article is not notable. If you are a resident of Buckinghamshire, interested in or concerned about the future of waste treatment it is clearly notable. Also in the UK we are in a phase of growing development of infrastructure designed to meet the EU Landfill Directive. There are presently major changes in the way we manage our waste or a member of the wider waste management community this is definately notable. A Google search is quite a lazy way of determining notability for new projects, as in their initial stages proposed infrastructure developments are seldom listed on websites. Also there is proof of notability by the additions by the anti-incineration group and their interest in this article, even if they are using it to increase exposure of their organisation.--Alex Marshall (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In addition I note there are also comments about the notability of the Belvedere Incinerator. This project has been so contraversial the Mayor of London has been involved in the surrounding debate. Please check the references for this as they clearly show notability. --Alex Marshall (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

    Comment: the mention of the other two was not to say they have to be deleted, it was to point out that if it helps to decide in discussion whether this article should be kept, it might be worth while looking at the others to get context. If I had intended for either of the other two to get deleted now, I would have nominated them now. -- Roleplayer (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment Hi Roleplayer, I think I created all of the articles listed. The Belvedere project is the one of most notability. --Alex Marshall (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - proposals under active consideration would be notable. If the proposal is rejected by the relevent council, then it looses notability and would only be entitled to a redlink on List of incinerators in the UK (or, at most, a paragraph on List of rejected incinerator proposals in the UK ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - if completed, the facility still needs to establish notability to meet WP:N for example by multiple, independent secondary sources, and that has yet to be achieved. This article might have attained notability had the Opposition section been sourced with some seriously reliable sources but it is unsourced. All in all the case for keeping this page simply hasn't been made. TerriersFan (talk) 23:28, 8 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.