Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxygen plant


 * 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   keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oxygen plant

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Semi-blatant spam. Article creator, and primary editor, is User:Grasys - Grasys is a company also mentioned in the article as conveniently producing aforementioned "oxygen plants." Gsearches for text in the article turn up links such as which are promotional materials for Grasys products. Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Google has never heard of an "oxygen adsorbtion plant" as described by the article, and even if it's a typo for "absorbtion" as google suggests, none of the 6 results are for the same thing. JulesH (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, it is a typo, but for a different word. Should have been "oxygen adsorption plant", which turns up a few ghits, some of which seem to be reliable sources: .  Unsure as to whether this constitutes enough for an article on such plants. JulesH (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Particularly seeing as all three are apparently talking about the same plant, which GRASYS is contracted to supply. If only one of these has ever been built, is the concept that notable? JulesH (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually found some other manufactures . They just call them oxygen plants or nitrogen plants, but it seems to be same concept as in article, something about purifing air. I think the article is a keeper, although the stuff about Grasys should probably be removed.  TheFreeloader (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I try to correct the article based on your remarks. GRASYS —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep I've corrected the typo. These are fairly common oxygen sources, similar to the nitrogen generators in idea. Should be in Wikipedia. More references needed - easy to find, but I'm off to dentist now... Peridon (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Should be cleaned up, but quite an important thing for which to have an article. Valley2 city ‽ 20:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Author might have a conflict of interest, but as long as the article itself passes the blatant advert test, it's worthy of inclusion. Subject matter experts and all that. §FreeRangeFrog 20:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * the blatant advertisement test is merely what's necessary to avoid immediate deletion by speedy, not for keeping a a WP article.DGG (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2009 (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.