Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioethanol From Small Grains

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bioethanol From Small Grains

I realize this is still being written, but nothing is going to save it from being a long personal essay full of original research that doesn't cite its sources and is pretty much redundant with bioethanol. Opabinia regalis 05:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You don't know that. If you ask, you might get the author to cite sources and write in an encyclopedic style, but essentially this is OR and obsolete with our existing articles in the subject area. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an essay, not an article. JIP | Talk 10:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it fails per nom at the moment, but the editor claims they will provide references, and if cut back it wouldn't be entirely redundant with bioethanol (although it would be a likely merge candidate). Engaging the author before bringing it to AFD would have been a good plan. Yomangani ^talk 11:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete... if this gets cited it would be appropriate for a merge to bioethanol, but I see no reason for a separate article.--Isotope23 15:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Biofuels in South Africa. Looks like sources have been added and the material that is there is specific to South Africa and the Western Cape so let's give the article the appropriate title and be done with it. --Richard 08:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I was going to vote Move to Biofuels in South Africa, but then I actually read the thing. If those "references" at the bottom really are related to anything in the article (I hesitate to call it an article; it is an essay), there's no way to tell. This does appear to be rather POV and the tone is inappropriate. At the very least, it will need to be moved and rewritten. No vote. ergot 18:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A very bloated essay. If someithing is salvageable, urge the author to merge it into bioethanol Mukadderat 18:28, 10 September 2006 (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.