Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage

This article is overlapping with Bio-energy with carbon storage as a main part of the latter and the reason for this article seems to be just promotional. Therefore this page was merged and redirected into Bio-energy with carbon storage, which was cleaned-up afterward. However, this redirect was contested by the creator of this article, who find that this is a deletion, and therefore it should be taken for WP:AfD. Although AfD procedure is not for merger discussion, the result of the discussion should be redirect, and therefore it could be rigth place to discuss this issue. Beagel (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close not an issue for AfD. -Atmoz (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, this article should be redirected to either Bio-energy with carbon storage or Carbon capture and storage. -Atmoz (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep people might search for both techniques (BECS and BECCS), and they are actually (a bit) different. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete pointless waste of time duplicate article that is pretty crappy as well William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep because there may be a multiple issues problem at the proposed merge site (BECS). Nepomuk 3 (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) If there's a redirect, it should be to BECS because that incorporates BECCS. The very fact there's confusion over where to redirect to further justifies the maintenance of both articles. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. It only shows that there are problems with both articles. Actually it seems like POV fork for me as the bioenergy is same notwithstanding if it is suplimented with CCS or not, and from the technical point of view, the CCS used for bioenergy itself is same as the CCS used for fossil fuels. So, there is no reason to create a number of articles on this subject which may be considered as WP:POVFORK. Beagel (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a POVfork, its just having an entry of various things people are likely to be looking for. It's not a POV issue, more on of inclusionism. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2009 (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.