Deletion of Plagiarismdetect

Comment: WP:SOAPBOX|Soapboxing and blatant |POV-pushing. I also have no clue as to why the title is called as such
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Don't really agree with most of what's been said so far.  It seems to me that it could be a good faith attempt.  The title is very suspicous but that could be a simple editing error - it makes no sense otherwise.  I don't think  applies and I see no evidence of any POV pushing.   is more difficult, it does give references but they are incomplete, so difficult to check up.  I have tried to find them on Google scholar (which is nowhere near 100% definitive) and only one out of the first four refs gets a (possible) hit.  Suspicous, but not definitive grounds for deletion, and in any case, references for such a subject are easy to come by so the article could, in principle, be fixed.  However, what the article actually seems to be about is bioethanol, on which we already have an excellent mature article.  This article is lightweight by comparison and completely non-wiki house style.  I say delete per  and point the author to the existing article which he/she may be able to improve
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:V||WP:CFORK)

Comment: It definitely fails  and, as others have said, if it was cleaned up it would be renamed Bioethanol at which point it is redundant anyway
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)