Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automated conveyor roller condition monitoring

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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated conveyor roller condition monitoring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As I pointed out on the article's talk page when I draftified this:

The article has had serious problems since it was first created [2017]. When i contacted the article creator over the issues he stated that he would be working continuously to improve it, so I left it. I lost track of it, and now I find that the creator never returned to the article, never addressed his possible COI, and no-one else has made substantial efforts to fix the issues.
We might be able to justify an article on the subject, but a better topic would likely be the larger. less specific field of Automated condition monitoring. I have some experience in the field, but don't feel like putting the effort into rewriting it, so I've draftified it. If the creator or someone else does not work on it, it will eventually be deleted as a stale draft. As it stands, this is sourced to a proprietary system and a few dissertations. TNT is probably the best solution.

See User talk:Ryan Norris161531 for my attempts to get the author to explain and address the issues. I moved it to draft on August 10, 2021. The policy page discussion on draftifying established articles Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_159#Resolve_the_inconsistency_between_WP:DRAFTIFY_and_WP:ATD did not close until September 13, 2021 and was not even opened until August 13, three days after I draftified the article. The article should have been deleted as an abandoned draft, but instead user:Chess moved it back to article space and incorrectly claimed that the policy that established articles should not be moved to draft was already in effect when I draftified the article, thee days before the policy discussion was even opened [1] Meters (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned discussion closed on September 13, 2020. You're reading the year wrong. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just noticed my error. My apologies. Meters (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My move of this article to draft was incorrect. I should have brought this to AFD a the time. Meters (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed another batch of verbatim copvio from a Phd thesis. Meters (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2022 (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.