Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Treatment 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. Consensus reached, including the nominator. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Treatment Plant

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable lump of infrastructure. Can't see that the sources establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't see this being a notable plant, nothing architectural of note, beyond existing, nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as page creator): I agree that I did not add enough sources when I initially created this page. I have added several, demonstrating significant coverage by local news agencies throughout the plant's lifespan. This is not a mundane treatment plant, it serves a very large, populated area. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are quite a few of this type of infrastructure in Category:Sewage treatment plants and there appears to be appropriate sourcing and content for its coverage. Reywas92^Talk 16:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Seriously? Sewage treatment plants are not notable, claiming they are is just a metaphor for rot that has set in here.~~ Apologies, I should have said that sewage plants are run-of-the-mill and this should be deleted because of WP:Run-of-the-mill. ~~Please, please, please click on the above voters category and take in the awesome# of sewage plants on wikipedia before closing this as "keep".~~ apologies for that. ~~Please somebody~~ If this closes as delete I will ~~nominate~~ prod all those sewage plants for deletion.~~!!!~~ James.folsom (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC) edit:James.folsom (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James.folsom, I don't know if this AfD will close as "delete" but please look at these before you take it on yourself to delete every sewage treatment plant article:
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion - a policy
- Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability - a guideline
You've referred here and elsewhere to WP:Run-of-the-mill -- that is an essay. It is a non-binding opinion piece.

Deletion decisions are based on the guideline and policy above, not an essay.

What's run of the mill and uninteresting to you may have value to others - and vice versa. One of the two articles you've created is
WP:IDONTLIKEIT
is not a policy.

There are engineers and others that are interested in infrastructure articles like South Treatment Plant.

See also Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. You need to think about what the alternatives to deletion will be as part of your purge strategy. That's going to take some work on your part -- creating lists or merging content into existing articles. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment Firstly, those who voted keep should take a look at
WP:OTHERSTUFF. As noted above, there are many many articles of eye-watering non- notable subjests on WP. Seconly, I do not see any sources that are not routine coverage in local sources. Wikipedia is not solely for people in Renton.TheLongTone (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the adequate sourcing found in the article. Wikipedia may not be solely for the people of Renton but it is for them as much as any other people. Also Wikipedia is not paper (i.e. it has room for niche topics that paper encyclopedias might eschew). Eluchil404 (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This vote is wp:everything.James.folsom (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wp:nothing JM (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. They're just opinions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

more comment I would also point out that this plant is not considered interesting enough to be mentioned on the Renton page. Had this not been the case, I would have redirected rather than AfDing.TheLongTone (talk)
Also the claim that because wikipedia is digital, there is no reason to limit what it contains is not a well thought out argument. It doesn't take in to account other reasons we might not want to have "everything in wikipedia. EG, there are a finite number of volunteers to maintain it, just to name one reason. James.folsom (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in sources used is largely local in nature, describing the stuff that happens at a sewage plant, upgrades, etc. Very much run of the mill. Beyond confirming it exists and does what it's supposed to, I can't see anything that makes it notable. Sourcing isn't anything you wouldn't find in any local newspaper, telling local taxpayers what their money is spent on. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any reason that sewage treatment plants generally and this one specifically do not meet our notability guidelines. jengod (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's nice that we can take sewage treatment plants for granted as invisible infrastructure that is so unremarkable it doesn't warrant mention in the histories. However, I think the human history of dying of cholera, and the ongoing effect of eutrophication on ocean biodiversity tell me that sewage treatment is actually Very Important. (My local treatment plant started out in the 20s using a hollowed-out redwood log as the flume that poured the sewage directly into the ocean!) jengod (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of treating sewage & methods of doing so are notable. Individual plants generally will not be.TheLongTone (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're probably right. I might even change my vote (but I'm sad about losing knowledge). Do we have notability guidelines for specific infrastructure or are they generally classified as "architecture"? jengod (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked into any related research or business transactions related to the plant that might establish notability and found only one mention of it, in that it was connected to a pump station in Kirkland, Washington that was upgraded in 2005.^[1] Recon rabbit 16:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Pump Station Project Increases System Capacity." Pacific Builder and Engineer, vol. 115, no. 5, 2 Mar. 2009, p. 10. Gale Business: Insights, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A194951504/ Accessed 19 Jan. 2024.

Merge: This and West Point Treatment Plant are important infrastructure in King County that played a significant role in cleaning up the Puget Sound, but since both plants were built around the same time, by the same entity, and had similar impacts, the two should be merged together to form a page titled something like like King County Treatment Plants (with appropriate redirects). The subject of sewage treatment facilities in King County is notable, though the individual plants may not be notable enough for their own articles. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 21:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge changing vote from keep to merge per DJ Cane's comment above. jengod (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the articles are merged, it will be harder to include unique information about each plant (such as the flood at West Point or the geographic characteristics of South). Also, there is the Brightwater Treatment Plant article which further complicates a merge. Brightwater is a far more recent plant, with its own history. It is simpler to keep the three articles on the notable plants, and this preserves more information. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think these plants have short enough history individually that they can be handled in the same article with the use of subheadlines. Each one is no longer than two paragraphs long and the history section of West Point Treatment Plant literally has the See also: South Treatment Plant tag. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 02:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Keep’’’ or ‘’’Merge’’’ as above. Major public infrastructural projects etc. that affect local society and environment and receive media coverage for doing so are notable. (also, it’s a very cool building, from the photo.) Llajwa (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The merge is rather newly suggested. Thoughts regarding this would be very helpful, including if desired from anyone who commented above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just and additional argument to my delete vote. Somebody, kindly recently explained something about WP:GNG. That is that to meet that policy an article needs secondary sources. This doesn't have any, I've not found any. Somebody should make sure the merge targets meet WP:GNG as well.James.folsom (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - did anyone check Google Scholar, JSTOR or the Wikipedia Library? This plant's been the subject of many technical firsts and scientific papers. I added several to the article; Google Scholar says there's 60-70 more papers out there. This is one of the few plants in the world that treats its biogas to commercial pipeline quality. King County installed a 1MW molten carbonate fuel cell to use its biogas; at the time it was the largest ever built. Also, this plant serves 650,000 people; that's "not nothin". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the article and have added 6 refs from Google Scholar and JSTOR searches. I left another one on the talk page. These papers have been interesting to read -- King County has been an engineering leader with this plant.

I'm done for now. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jengod, @DJ Cane, @Oaktree b - see the refs added since your !vote. --05:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One other observation: the current cost to build a new plant with this capacity is on the order of $3 billion.^[1] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - happily changing vote back to keep (I unironically love a good biogas digester). Thank you for the expansion A. B.! jengod (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you @A. B.: for significantly expanding the article and clearly showing notability. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep per A. B. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 13:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination, above arguments & recent additions to article make this worth inclusion.TheLongTone (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2024 (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.

[1] "Pump Station Project Increases System Capacity." Pacific Builder and Engineer, vol. 115, no. 5, 2 Mar. 2009, p. 10. Gale Business: Insights, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A194951504/ Accessed 19 Jan. 2024.

[1]