Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lübeck Waste Treatment Facility (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Lübeck Waste Treatment Facility
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As per my previous nomination which had no participants. fails WP:GNG. waste treatment facilities are rarely notable, the references merely confirm what the facility can do technically. The claim this was inspiration for similar facilities in Manchester is not actually stated in the sources provided. There is also no corresponding article in German. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment. To the nominator, do you have access to the two sources that supported the Manchester claim? The links no longer work.  I would assume good faith on the part of the original editor, that the sources said what they said, unless there is compelling evidence otherwise. -- do  ncr  am  04:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This 2013 source, provides support on the importance of the facility --- it gives eco-tours even --- and provides support that it was the basis for U.K. designs including Manchester (with its source being not Wikipedia but rather this 2009 Manchester coverage (subscription required, I don't have access).  Other hits in the search above also include info. -- do  ncr  am  04:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (report)  @ 14:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete. The references for the "was the inspiration..." statement are both dead links. If we removed this un-verifiable information, the facility would be truly non-notable. Piboy51 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  01:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Responding to Piboy51's comment: Umm, for one thing, a deadlink is a once-online-but-now-offline source, which is fine, still.  Second, there's ONLINE support for the information.  The [2013 source I provided above (search on "Manchester", gets to p.19) states: "The system design at Lubeck has been the inspiration for three facilities planned for construction by Viridor Laing, a UK waste management and infrastructure investor consortium, as part of the Greater Manchester Waste PFI project."  That's one online source, in addition to the (deadlink) sources in the Wikipedia article.  And the 2013 source gives footnote indicating that [this 2009 Manchester coverage provides support, which is another source.  And there probably are other off-line reliable sources.  So Piboy51 rationale to delete appears invalid.  I voted "Keep" above. --[[User:doncram| do ]] ncr  am  01:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: I don't see evidence of notability in the sources.  Also, I don't see any evidence of an article on this facility on the German wikipedia.  Presumably it is not called the "Lubeck Waste Treatment Facility" there.  It is likely called the Luebeck Mechanisch-biologische Abfallbehandlungsanlage, and its one of many such plants.--Milowent • hasspoken  03:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. But the Lubeck facility is a prominent example of its type (Mechanical Biological Treatment), for whatever reason it emerged as the model.  I don't know if its type is common in Germany, I see no indication of that.  But it is the one that was model for the Manchester plants.  And here's an additional example:  it is a model for the European Union's EU LIFE+ 2009 Program, a greenhouse gas-reduction program "thaat will enable Waste Management Authorities and other stakeholders to substantially reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions resulting from their waste management (WM) activities" program goals stated in an initiative for improving waste management for country of Turkey.  Among the list of case studies for (what i assume to be best practices in) each type of WM, the Lubeck facility is the case study for "Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) with wet AD".  Here is the case study on Lubeck MBT, with description and facts and statistics (some to be added to the wikipedia article).


 * Thanks Milowent, searching on or  actually yields some hits.  For example, this webpage with facts about the facility, from its operator:

Google-translated-to-English version.
 * Try also and .  Searching on Lubeck MBT brings up this documentation of study visit by Suffolk and Northamptonshire officials to Lubeck and other German WM plants:  "Thirteen councillors and officers from Suffolk undertook visits to four German waste processing plants on the 1st and 2nd March 2006.  These visits were organised by Enviros on behalf of the Defra Waste Implementation Programme.  A party from Northamptonshire also accompanied the Suffolk people."  Notes on Lubeck included.
 * With additional usage as model in EU-funded program, I think it's notable (already voted Keep above). -- do ncr  am  19:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * delete - This is a standard type of facility with equal or similar installations all over Germany. If a delegation from the UK visited this place, then this probably didn't happen because there is anything special with the local facility, but rather because the tho cities were already involved in some kind of "diplomatic relationship" before that. --Latebird (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2015 (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.