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. Tone 08:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cotswold Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable company, Fails WP:CORP & WP:RS –
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: With a little digging, I was able to find some information on it and an article. I think there's something to be said for its existence as well as a connection with bus colors in SE England (I'm just completely new to the history). --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 02:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as for most public transportation companies. Make a redirect from Ebley Bus and include information on it, as the prior company DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 19 May 2013 (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.

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. A bit of a mess of a debate with several contributors bolding more than one term. This is a delete not on the numbers of votes, but on the policy arguments employed. For the most part, the keep arguments were for waiting to see how this develops. No rationale was advanced for why the counterargument (WP:CRYSTAL) should not apply or should be ignored. Those keep arguments that were not along those lines argued from general notability (WP:GNG) but did not address the delete argument of WP:NOTNEWS. The delete arguments of WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E would have been valid until the article was renamed half way through this debate. Some contributers wished to move this article to Dellen Millard. Since that article has been created during the course of this debate that is no longer possible. However, I will be more than happy to userfy the article for anyone wishing to merge more material into that article. SpinningSpark 00:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bosma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Classic case of BLP1E. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not notable in the slightest. This is just a missing person ad. John of Cromer in Philippines transit (talk) mytime= Mon 00:29, wikitime= 23:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the crime might be notable per WP:EVENT, even if the person isn't per WP:BLP1E. It's WP:TOOSOON to say whether the crime will be notable, with long-lasting and significant coverage, but it's currently getting national coverage in the Canadian press. Might be a good idea to WP:USERFY this for a few weeks. Then if the event turns out to be notable per WP:CRIME, WP:GNG, etc, rename it to something like Kidnapping of Tim Bosma. Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is sick to have a Twitter-like article about an on-going crime investigation. If the victim is found alive, it becomes yesterdays news. If he is not found alive, it becomes another tabloid crime story along with thousands of others. This is wikipedia scraping the bottom of the barrel - from underneath. It is an utter disgrace that this article has not been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.118.175 (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Wikpedia articles should never be written about ongoing crime investigations, no matter how long the investigation takes? It's also not yet certain which crime has taken place, and that Bosma is alive and well, as in the Runaway bride case. One person has been charged (but not tried) for the forcible confinement of Bosma and theft of his vehicle. Reliable sources including the CBC and the National Post are covering the story, not just lurid supermarket tabloids, because the event appears to be a matter of national significance. Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This Crime is currently receiving Canadian Nation Wide Attention. I agree with Captain Conundrum that though the crime might be notable per WP:EVENT, even if the person isn't per WP:BLP1E As per news reports there has been arrest made in this case however Mr Tim Bosma has not been located at this time as per CBC News report ^[1], there is evidence that suggests that the accused may have previously attempted a kidnapping earlier last week. . It's WP:TOOSOON to say whether the crime will be notable, perhaps its best to wait and see. PersonZ777 (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, wait and see. I personally searched for this article to get caught up on details I may not yet have known, as I've been behind on the news of late. -Andrew (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same.

• Should be deleted. There is nothing to distinguish this murder as notable. With a relatively low murder rate, all murders in Canada get national attention. The crime would need to affect society in some way: change of laws, movie based on crime, etc. it is far too early for any article to be created. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable? Name another like it in Canada. Try to buy a used truck online recently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.40.143 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This Crime is currently under investigation and receiving Canadian Nation Wide Attention from reliable sources, I don't agree that this article should be deleted, I vote Keep however given that there has been an arrest made in this case it is important that Wikipedians are careful with the information provided on this article so as to not jeopardize the investigation. The accused has been noted to be the grandson of Millardair founder Carl Millard (1913-2006)^[2] as stated the investigation is still pending however Dellen Millard, 27, of Toronto, has been charged with forcible confinement and theft over $5,000. Tim Bosma has been found dead on May 14, 2013 as per Hamilton, Ontario Police ^[3] given the circumstances wait and see.PersonZ777 (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The alleged murderer, or possible conspirator in Bosma's disappearance is the youngest person in Canada to fly a plane and possibly the youngest person in the world to fly a helicopter solo[1]. Nearly 100,000 people joined in an effort to search for him on Facebook, comprising one of the largest Facebook efforts in Canadian Internet history. This made the news nationally in Canada, and border services[2] got involved in the investigation as well, which involved multiple municipal areas with a combined population of over one million. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 17:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But wait and see. I think the notability of the accuse may make this notable, or maybe in the end there should be an article about the accused, with this murder comprising a section. But I'll tell ya, a bunch of people sharing a bloody Facebook picture does not "newsworthy" make. Yeesh. →mrs smartygirl← | Talk 19:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to have just passed the thresholds of WP:NEWSEVENT and WP:CRIME. --Drm310 (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Still delete I still contend the article should be deleted. From WP:NESEVENT: " A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance." At the moment this fails this criteria. There's no social, political or fame-element that distinguishes this crime. It's being argued that the people involved have some notability. If that's the case then do any of those already have a Wikipedia bio article? I'm finding the keep argument very unconvincing. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Fair enough, then perhaps move this to an article on Dellen Millard (who is notable by WP:BIO for past achievements) and expand? --Drm310 (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Move I'm changing my "keep" to a "move" since I'm not the only one who feels this way. eta: I started a Dellen Millard page if anyone wants to contribute →mrs smartygirl← | Talk 16:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A terrible tragedy, to be sure, but yes, a textbook case of failing WP:CRIME. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It is somewhat notable, but may be too soon to be sure. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I usually am very inclusive about the rule for NOT NEWS, but thisseems exactly the sort of article to which it should apply. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I honestly see nothing wrong with this except it could be a bit better by renaming it 'Tim Bosma' but other than that, I don't see how this article is considered a 'Tabloid', 'Twitter', or 'A disgrace to Wikipedia'. I know that the Boston Marathon bombings started the same way, and I know none of us would want that deleted. buffbills (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - the ongoing investigation into Millard's properties and past indicates there may be more here yet. A merge into Dellen Millard may yet be the best path, but I say keep things as they are for now until more details emerge. Radagast (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. This is currently a huge case and getting daily updates in national media. Like all current events and BLP articles it needs to be treated with plenty of care and might ultimately be merged somewhere, but outright deletion right now doesn't make sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is WP:CRYSTALBALL reasoning, as are many of the other keep votes, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2013 (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.

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 merge to Leukoplakia. there is consensus for a merge. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability. One pubmed hit from 1988 with keywords "Acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia" : [3]. Is this a historic synonym for something else? I've been working on leukoplakia and I have not heard this term at all in any modern text. Most google results seem to be text directly copied from this wikipedia page or refer to the above 1988 paper. Lesion (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Further to my above comment, normal idiopathic leukoplakia could be described as acquired (i.e. not developmental), and dyskeratotic. I believe this is a minor historic synonym for what is now just generally termed leukoplakia. Lesion (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • If what you say is indeed true, then we can merge it into leukoplakia. --JB Adder | Talk 14:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not 100% sure that Acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia = leukoplakia, (but I can see that there is only one scientific paper that has it as a keyword...) so I'd like to leave this proposal open a while to see if anyone knows more about this... Lesion (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a merge and redirect would be reasonable here. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect as per above. If later studies come forward that provide new information about this particular sort of Leukoplakia, then an article might be appropriate - and having the redirect in place means that we would have the history available for that article. Seems to be more of a "Not Yet" as opposed to a "Not Ever", but I agree that the coverage just isn't there yet to support a standalone article. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• See also WT:MED#Leukoplakia, where this issue was discussed briefly. User:Novangelis found another reference to "acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia" in a dermatology textbook, [4] which suggested that there has been only one reported case of this condition, referencing I think the same 1988 case report. It seems that "acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia" was a description of a single case where there was leukoplakia of multiple mucosal surfaces, and is not a recognized diagnosis. There does not seem to be any paper published using this term (as a keyword/word in abstract) since 1988. Personally, I don't think this single case is notable for its own page, or to be mentioned on leukoplakia. Leaving a redirect in case of future uses of the term is an usual reason not to delete, but I can see the benefits of this. Lesion (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge to leukoplakia. Even if there is just one incident of it, I think a sentence mention of a unique case makes sense for the main article. It's not asking too much for just a sentence. Silverseren^C 21:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I realize I've talked a lot here, but having considered all the info that has been brought now, I am sure that delete with no redirect is appropriate. Not sure that a descriptive term used in a single case report from the 80s (and therefore arguably not even a real diagnosis) is notable for inclusion into the leukoplakia page. Lesion (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. How many people need to say "merge"? Merge or WP:SMERGE can very often be the best option if notability is questionable. Thincat (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't greatly mind a redirect, since I am fairly sure no-one will ever type this exact combination of words into wikipedia, but what are we supposed to be merging? It is a single line stub article, and the content might seem a little out of place on the leukoplakia page ... if we described it accurately, e.g. "A single reported case of multiple leukoplakia lesions involving the mouth, vagina, ... was reported in 1988, which the author described as "acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia". Lesion (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in this case there is scarcely anything to merge. A redirect, keeping history so anyone can later merge if they want to, would be fine by me. I don't see any harm in merge, however. An accurate description should be edited in and if the mention got removed later from leukoplakia that would also be a purely editorial matter. Thincat (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with redirect - no need for merge (basically the same outcome). -- Scray (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2013 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute of Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability. Not supported by any references except a blog. No evidence that it is accredited in any way. Although higher institutes of learning are usually deemed inherently notable, private colleges without certification are not necessarily included as it is often difficult to distinguish the fake degree factories from genuine educational institutes.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep I found this, which is quite interesting. It rather proves that it is not accredited and tried to fake that it was. But other than that one news article, I can't find anything more on it that would give it notability under the WP:GNG. It doesn't help that there are several other department and universities that have longer names that include "National Institute of Science and Technology" in them. But I checked them all and they don't appear to be about this university. Silverseren^C 21:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tito Dutta's news source below convinced me otherwise on the notability of the topic. I didn't know that Google doesn't properly index Indian news articles. Silverseren^C 23:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This institute was in existence since 1996 and recognised by Biju Patnaik University of Technology (See item 61). Even if this has been dereognised or under such process, this can be kept for being a institute of higher education for historical reference. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Multiple media coverages. The faking allegations etc have been covered by multiple newspapers too! In addition, seconding Amartyabag's comment! --Tito Dutta (contact) 22:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable if only for the news coverage.Jewishprincess (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Verified, degree-awarding tertiary institution affiliated to a university. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2013 (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.

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. No clear consensus on whether to move or not as of yet, I would recommend that discussion continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 05:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of cuisines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is just a duplication of lists already found elsewhere, and adds no actual information to the project. The Potato Hose ↘ 18:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to List of cuisines. I was initially going to agree with you, because I assumed that a separate List of cuisines article already existed. But it looks like it redirects here, so this is actually the main list article for cuisine articles. As such, it should probably be renamed to List of cuisines. It's certainly a list that we need and it doesn't appear to be actually duplicating anything. Silverseren^C 21:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that the list was actually moved to this new and weird name. The Potato Hose ↘ 06:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and don't rename.[See below] This is part of Portal:Contents/Outlines which has existed for years (but still manages to surprise some editors who haven't encountered it before!). See WP:CLN for the short version. It makes as much sense as any of the List of lists of lists, or disambig pages. etc (Deep rabbit hole). –Quiddity (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about things that have been around for a while. The page duplicates the nav template, and isn't really useful in any way. The Potato Hose ↘ 06:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see WP:CLN.

However, looking around further, in this particular case, I'd support merging this outline into Global cuisine, as they do overlap considerably, and I don't see huge potential for further growth in the other (non-regional) sections of the outline. Merge though, not just delete-all-content-and-redirect (as some slapdash editors might consider). –Quiddity (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Global cuisine' is a specific kind of cuisine (or at least is a term much used as such among chefs and food writers). As seren pointed out, this should be moved back to List of cuisines. The Potato Hose ↘ 20:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you click the link and look at Global cuisine... You'll see it's a list. I'm not attached to any particular name. As long as the content remains available. –Quiddity (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you click here and then do the opposite, you'll annoy me less. Now that we've both had a go at being snarky, can we get back to discussing this? Good. I'm aware that it's a list; I don't know yet if I can find enough sources to move that list to a different title, and do an article defining 'global cuisine' (fyi it's the label often used by very contemporary or avant-garde restaurants that create all their own dishes without being tied to any specific regional cuisine; restaurants like elBulli and wd~50 and so on are often described as global cuisine, usually in addition to their ideological style).

In any case, am I correct in summarizing your !vote as Move to List of cuisines? The Potato Hose ↘ 21:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was based on the fact that you were discussing an idealised definition of "Global cuisine", whereas I was discussing the actual-current-contents of the article-in-Wikipedia-currently-titled Global cuisine. Apologies that my poor wording came across as snark.

Yes, I'll change my !vote above, and agree with merge and rename the majority of the contents currently at Outline of cuisines and Global cuisine into a single article at List of cuisines. Any remaining list-style content that doesn't belong in that merged list, can hopefully be merged into Cuisine#See also.

I suspect it would be better, in the interest of preserving the bulk of the edit-history at the new location, to Page-Move the "global cuisine" article, and then merge the outline into that. (And then recreate the "global cuisine" article using new content based on its actual real-world usage of the phrase). –Quiddity (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Quiddity summed it up. No need to delete or rename. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, various move discussions can then take place further in article talk page space. — Cirt (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know you have to, like, provide an actual reason?  The Potato Hose ↘ 17:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Agree with rationales of those three (3) editors above that the page could potentially be moved or renamed.
2. As such, those sorts of discussions are best left to talk page discussions, and not the WP:AFD process itself.
3. Therefore, I commented as such, in my initial comment.
4. Further info on this at WP:NOTFORCLEANUP.

Have a great day, — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the emerging consensus to move, rename, and cleanup. "Nifty" is not a good reason, but there it is. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, then merge. A functional way to accomplish the notions above is to merge Global cuisine to "List of cuisines" (the latter of which currently redirects to Outline of cuisines). From this point, any information in the Outline of cuisines article not present in the new List of cuisines article would be merged into it. The Global cuisine page would be retained and focus specifically upon Global cuisine as a type of culinary cuisine. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:10, 17 May 2013 (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.

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. LFaraone 15:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Ronin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I suspect vanity. Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THE ENTRY IS A STUB setting out a bibliography on the important subject of energetically modified cement. It pertains to a NOTED academic in the field of advanced material sciences, who was awarded the gold award by EUREKA. This is vandalism plain and simple. Jono2013 (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would like to see a citation to support the Gold Medal from EUREKA. If Ronin's "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" then he meets the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Also, if he "received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level", or "made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I leaning toward 'keep' but I would like to see more evidence. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the external link and you can see the certificate for yourself. This was amply covered in previous discussions a week ago, on the main article page. Dr. Ronin meets so many of the criteria that is is so obvious that the nominator not only did not read the policy he espouses, but what's more, does not justify, nor seeks an explanation FIRST on either the talk page of the article or my talk page. Jono2013 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I was hoping for was a link hosted by Eureka, or a news item, not a file hosted by emccement.com. A PDF like this can easily be edited or modified; it is not proof by itself. I consider it a primary source, but WP:Secondary sources are needed here. Emccement.com is not an independent source—it is deeply involved. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user, Barney the barney barney (talk) not only has a history of not understanding fine distinctions, but moreover, nominating articles for deletion without discussing first. His type are a curse to wikipedia and serious scientific writing, and will lead to its demise in such areas. With respect to a page I have been working on for over a month (energetically modified cement) WITH the input of editors Wiki editors, he nevertheless nominated it without discussing first, which is clear violation of Wikipedia policy. There are many trolls on wiki and unfortunately they may stray into scientific subjects of which they have not the first base clue.

Just look at his talk page (if you can even bare to look at his user page image). A litany of self appointed judgments, not once seeking to discuss first. And I, as a 58 year old retired senior life sciences academic, am supposed to defend the entry of a noted academic, who has published even with the US National Academies, by virtue of an unsubstantiated nomination made by a user who flouts wiki policy and posts a deeply disrespectful picture of a woman on his user page? Shameful.

Tell me, when does this madness end? Sincerely and genuinely appalled, let alone aghast. Jono2013 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Gscholar citations level fairly low for industrial and chemical engineering at 33, 28, 15, 13, 9, 9, 6 .... (h-index of 6), failing WP:PROF#C1. The EUREKA Gold medal is not a very well known or especially prestigious prize; we don't even have an article on it, so it does not go very far towards WP:PROF#C2. A cursory Gnews search on the link above does not produce significant coverage of the subject. I conclude that this is a worthy but not particularly notable industrial researcher. Ray^Talk 19:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't put it better than Ray. I can see no sign of passing WP:Prof, Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Vanity, even if someone else's. EEng (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC) [Clarifying rephrasing in light of misinterpetation:] Overenthused boosterism. EEng (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We are not here to judge the "standing" of the subject. The question is, is this person of sufficent standing to merit an entry. This seems to be a very senior academic. The above allegations of vanity and "low level" are not helpful and may be offensive to the Professor. The academic is highly published and by the looks of it originated a term of art 20 years ago - or maybe I misunderstood. EUREKA is a highly credible organisation - an intergovernmental one at that. Although understanding EUREKA may be difficult, even for European editors, it has strong intergovernmental support. We can take the copy of the certificate at face value, albeit primary source. There may be difficulties obtaining secondary source verification - for example, EUREKA may not consider it a priority to list prize winners, and especially not just to satisfy a Wikipedian's zest for secondary sources. Indeed, anyone who goes so far as to include the link to EUREKA must be making an effort to substantiate it. For example, why would a senior academic risk "making it up"? Allegations that it may be a forgery are not constructive, an again may cause offence. Further, the academic has a listing at his accredited university. Again, I state we are not here to judge an academic subject's "merit". The comments by Ray seem to be unduly perjorative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.3.149 (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC) — 86.142.3.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"We are not here to judge the "standing" of the subject.", "Again, I state we are not here to judge an academic subject's "merit"." - Yes, we are, actually. People who do not meet the notability guidelines do not get Wikipedia articles. That's what this discussion was created to determine: Is the subject of this article notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? The guidelines are fairly simple, and discussions like these take place to give all interested Wikipedia editors a chance to express their opinion. Not all AFDs end with an article getting deleted. Many end with the article being improved by the discovery that takes place as a result of the AFD. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are of course the standard caveats that notability and merit are not the same thing. But we certainly are here to judge notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Energetically modified cement per WP:BIO1E. That article appears likely to survive its own AfD, and any notability for Ronin (e.g. the Eureka medal) appears to be for this one thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could support that option if nobody can show proof that Ronin's "research has made significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline", which I still think is a possibility. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the EUREKA Gold award, I searched through the group's website for the name "Ronin" and for various terms such as "modified cement" but I did not find any notice about Ronin receiving a Gold award. I entered the following search parameters in Google: "modified cement site:www.eurekanetwork.org/" and "Ronin site:www.eurekanetwork.org/" along with a few others. Nothing at all for Ronin on that website. Binksternet (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To David Eppstein AND Binksternet:

I have received an email from Professor Ronin yesterday, that yesterday morning he sent to the Wiki administrators regarding the attack on his character that Ronin perceives. Reading between the lines, I do not doubt Professor Ronin is not objecting to a discussion as to merit - rather, his email is clearly stating that he finds the allegations of "vanity" damaging to his "impeccable" (I quote from email) standing. The unsigned comment above was helpful as it has served as a marker to quell any further "opprobrium" by those who are representing Wikipedia, yet stray beyond the confines of what is acceptable by using terms which are possibly defamatory. I do not speak for Ronin. It is his business. Unlike all of us here, he does not have the protection of anonymity. It would have been perfectly acceptable for any "editor" to make the comments such as those immediately above. But in my view once an "editor" starts using highly weighted terms against an identified living person (e.g, accusing them of "vanity", then that is a different kettle of fish. This said, to make things clearer:

• Ronin is highly noted in his discipline.
• Ronin is the world leading expert on "energetically modified cement". I would wager that ask any academic who is operating in advanced material sciences pertaining to "cementitious materials" and the WILL know of EMC. Mreover, I wager, ask anyone of them, and they will say "Ronin". The words are, dare I say it, synonymous.
• Ronin derived the term "energetically Modified Cement" - which is still standing over 20 years later. The subject has been subject of independent research in universities as far afield as Illinois and China.
• Lawrence Berkeley Lab has even reviewed the technology. Ronin is accredited there as the inventor.
• Ronin has even published a paper with the US National Academies. As stated above by unsigned comment, we are not here to judge whether an article has "standing" per se. The very fact that Ronin has published prolifically corroborates matters positively anyhow.
• The fact that Ronin's papers are co-authored by a variety of authors add credibility. For example, Elfgren is considered by many in the field to be a world leading authorities.
• LTU is one of the World's leading universities in the "material science" side of cement technologies. This is because of its extreme climate. It's importanc can be easily discerned having in mind that this year's Cambridge University "Future Infrastructure Forum" (FIF) comprised a lecture by Elfgren, despite the fact that FIF's aim is exclusively UK academics and industry. Moreover, the invites came personally from Campbell Middleton.
• You can read more about FIF here. Or, perhaps it is better to consider the PDF here. For example you will see the "real faces" behind it.
• Should you go to the Energetically modified cement entry, note the pictorial insert. I understand that "biomimetics" is the "cutting edge" focus of FIF. This would be borne out by Prof. Bob Larks presentation to FIF, here.
• Whence, I understand that Cambridge may wish to co-operate in partnership with Ronin/LTU/Elfgren regarding the biomimetics of Energetically Modified Cement, but I understand whether that is going to happen or not will depend largely on Ronin (note, not Elfgren).
• The EUREKA award is highly significant. I understand (but I cannot verify if for the purposes of the article) that it was presented by the then UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
• It's quite clear EUREKA is "heavy weight". It was formed by then French President and the then German Chancellor in 1985. You can read more about it here: EUREKA 20TH ANNIVERSARY REPORT – Two decades of support for European innovation.

You'll understand that I have shared some intimate details here, which I trust will not be "abused". I have no connection with EMC in any shape or form. I am simply a 58 year old retired (senior) life sciences academic, who has for many years considered that EMC is a subject the World must have the "right" to learn about. Had I had known that it would lead to Ronin being accused of "vanity" or "not particularly notable industrial researcher" then I would never have commenced this. It is deeply embarrassing. Noted living academics of impeccable standing should not be subject to such unguarded comments. I said it before, I will say it again: I, as a 58 year old retired senior life sciences academic, am supposed to defend the entry of a noted academic, who has published even with the US National Academies, by virtue of an unsubstantiated nomination made by a user who flouts wiki policy by not discussing this entry and EMC's entry first (yet, nominated BOTH for deletion) and even posts a deeply disrespectful picture of a woman on his user page. And that is all there is to it. Common sense alone would highlight the absurdity. Let alone that having considered matters, I suspect that the nominator may be a "sock puppet" of the first nominator. In any event, the motives are unclear, but one thing is true: despite two nominations for deletion, the EMC entry has NEVER received a "discard" nomination. Never. Res ipsa loquitor. Indeed, with one reviewer of the EMC Afd going so far as to state "this AfD seems like a waste of everyone's time". Res ipsa loquitor indeed.

I hope you find the above further constructive insight. Jono2013 (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not helpful.

• You are dangerously close to WP:NLT
• To avoid unintended offense to the article subject I have rephrased me earlier comment Vanity, even if someone else's to Overenthused boosterism,
• Read WP:ACADEMIC, including its notes, then give evidence for one or more of its criteria.

• "Ronin is highly noted in his discipline", on its own, isn't evidence (and please note ACADEMIC's discussion of "discipline sufficiently broadly construed").
• The Eureka award is clearly not "highly prestigious" -- any award evidenced by the recipient's name and achievement being typed into blanks on a form with a preprinted signature [5] isn't highly prestigious.
• Strained claims such as "Lawrence Berkeley Lab has even reviewed the technology", as if that was something special, reduce the likelihood people will give serious consideration to your other points.

EEng (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Re "Strained claims such as "Lawrence Berkeley Lab has even reviewed the technology", as if that was something special,", see Hasanbeigi, A; Price, L; Lin, E; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL Paper LBNL-5434E (2013). "Emerging Energy-efficiency and CO2 Emission-reduction Technologies for Cement and Concrete Production", which it cited on the EMC page. It's a U.S. a national review. By THREE non connected academics.

Evaluating energy and materials technologies is part of what LBL does routinely. It's like saying "my product was evaluated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission" -- no big deal. To offer it as evidence of notability shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what notability means on WP. Again, please see WP:ACADEMIC. EEng (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Re The Eureka award is clearly not "highly prestigious" -- any award evidenced by the recipient's name and achievement being typed into blanks on a form with a preprinted signature [6] isn't highly prestigious.

Please understand, EUREKA is one of the official arms of the EU Commission promoting European R&D?

NOTE: The award is a TROPHY and a certificate. Please don't tell me you are now raising an innuendo of FORGERY against Professor Ronin??? (In this regard, note that I agree with the unsigned comment above: why would a named and noted academic risk credibility by manufacturing it?) Not only did Ronin receive an award for EMC, but the EMC "discovery/invention" received the GOLD award, and not only the "GOLD award" but also "with mention". The organizing committee of EUREKA is especially rigorous. Since the award, EUREKA may have "moved on", but I do beleive it's fair to say that innovations have to be genuine science, genuine R&D. I'm a bit concerned your missing this point.

• Are you saying the world-leading authority on EMC, it's inventor, 20 years ago, and the author of that accepted term of art, that is common parlance within the academic discipline, twenty years on, is not noted "enough" for Wiki? Or are you saying EMC is not noteworthy enough? Im confused.

By "highly prestigious award" we mean Nobel Prize, Turing Award, Fields Medal, IEEE Medals -- stuff that would be front-page news in a professional organization's publications. The suggestion that the pdf might be faked was unnecessary, but the reason we demand secondary sources (i.e. the bestowing of the award needs to have been discussed in some journal or magazine) is that if no one thought it was worth writing about, then it's not something WP counts toward notability. EEng (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Re your first point, I have made no legal threat. Neither has Ronin. I have posted his email on your talk page. I hope this assists.

Kind regards Jono2013 (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. To add to what Ray found, WoS shows a very short publication list with citations: 17, 12, 4, 0 (h-index 3) using the query "Author=(ronin v*) Refined by: [excluding] Web of Science Categories=(MEDICINE GENERAL INTERNAL) AND [excluding] Web of Science Categories=(ONCOLOGY OR LITERATURE OR LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS) Timespan=All years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" – this is vastly short of WP:PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Addendum. It has been asserted above that "Ronin has even published a paper with the US National Academies". I think most would understand this to mean that Ronin published a paper in PNAS, but such a paper is not in the WoS list. Was this a NAS contract report, perhaps? Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

With respect: That is NOT what I said: I did not say "proceedings", at all. But, moving on let's just take ONE paper from 2005. It's cited 6 times, independently, including Chinese universities including THIS YEAR. Do you note the title of the 2009 (Chinese) citation: It even uses the term EMC. So, 20 years on, Ronin's term is being used, EMC is "understood". The world leading expert??? And you dont think that's notable? See here:

http://www.scopus.com/results/citedbyresults.url?sort=plf-f&cite=2-s2.0-34250795667&src=s&imp=t&sid=14ADABC3C9BB0901906ABD8E474EE256.euC1gMODexYlPkQec4u1Q%3a30&sot=cite&sdt=a&sl=0&origin=inward&txGid=14ADABC3C9BB0901906ABD8E474EE256.euC1gMODexYlPkQec4u1Q%3a2

• FYI, PNAS is the official journal of the US Nat. Acad. of Sciences, so most people will indeed presume this from what you stated. If it is not what you meant, then might you elaborate on your statement that he "published a paper with the US National Academies"? With respect to the scopus link, I'm afraid 6 citations is not much. With respect to coining the term EMC, it will be helpful to find a secondary source that documents this...otherwise it's only assertion. May I offer some friendly, well-intentioned advice? It will not help your cause to be adversarial. The panelists that have weighed-in here so far are all very seasoned and have checked the usual sources for indications of notability. None have been found. Does that mean Dr Ronin is not notable? No, not yet anyway. What will help is to find additional sources. Assertion, testimonial, unpublished manuscripts, etc. will not count. I assure you that folks here will change their position if proof is forthcoming. Otherwise, I'm afraid he's not notable within the scope of Wikipedia's guidelines. Hope this is helpful. Agricola44 (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Collapse more off-topic discussion regarding the propriety of collapsing the previous off-topic discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Uncle Milty: I have undone your actions in collapsing the above record. Please do not interfere with it again. You know very well you accused me of being "liar" and "committing a fraud" (as referenced above) and you know very well that the apology from Wiki covers that, as well as the admonishment cited. The record is the record. You may have noted the email from Ronin is precisely drafted. It was written by Ronin's lawyers and I want everyone to see the persistent harassment that the EMC article and I have received, the steps taken and the results. We are now at the ridiculous stage whereby the world leading AUTHORITY on EMC cannot get a mention. And I use the word "AUTHORITY" in the purest sense. Ask any advanced material scientist professor, who is specialist in cementitious materials and they will say "EMC means Ronin". But it goes in one ear, and out the other, by editors who are not prepared to listen. And all he has gotten, is nothing but abuse. And me too, For which wiki has apologized. And no doubt the EUREKA organisation will be equally appalled by the comments made in denuding and disparaging the MOST prestigious EU INTERGOVERNMENTAL institution. It has even been insinuated that Ronin has forged the certificate. It just never stops. And the above is a PARTIAL record of the torrent of accusations I have had to defned, all because of the user "Barney the Barney Barney". IF this was a deliberate act by "Barney the Barny barney" to disparage Ronin and his work, then in my book this is SERIOUS misconduct - and that is why I have been so utterly STRIDENT in my defense. Jono2013 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] I have recollapsed the section because it is completely off-topic and has nothing to do with this article. Jono, no one is out to get you. Lighten up. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Will you please STOP collapsing the above section. It is not "completely off topic". For goodness sake, Wiki has apologized for the attacks made against Ronin ON THIS THREAD. Editors have the right to know that. This is not about people wanting to "get me" either. I couldn't care less. What I care about is the persistent history of abuse and harassment/bullying that I have had to endure for the sake of the article. For the sake of ensuring ACCURACY. Not for my sake. For wikipedia's sake. As there is a pattern here which is suggestive of attempted spoiling. Or dont tell me, notwithstanding the record that I set out dispassionately, you cant see it? You may have been "suckered" into it, I'll grant you that, but as I said, we are now at the ridiculous situation where the world leading AUTHORITY what is BY FAR the most important advances in cementitious materials, cannot get a mention. All because "Barney the Barney Barney" posts an AfD without discussing first, by posting a highly defamatory comment against a living named (impeccable) academic, for which Wiki has APOLOGIZED ----- precisely two minutes AFTER posting the EMC article for AfD also without discussion first - despite the latter having had it nomination withdrawn only a few days earlier. You may have been suckered into it - and if so, Im sorry for that - truly I am - but that is nothing compared to what I have been through this past week or so. And latterly Ronin. Who has now gone BALLISTIC because he has read the comment above whereby it has been alleged he FORGED the certificate. It never ends. This AfD process is truly Pandora's box, which is WHY it should NEVER be instigated without discussing first. Look at the damage. Just look at it. It's absolutely brutal. And if you care about wiki like I do, you'll share my view. Regards Jono2013 (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Everything you wrote in that section is still there, and if anyone is interested in reading something that has nothing to do with this AFD, they easily can. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Look, you have not addressed my LEGITIMATE issues - and by misnaming the "collapse box" you have given the impression Ronin's email was only about images. It clearly wasn't. It was about the attacks being made against him and you calling me a "liar" and then stating that I had "committed a fraud". Which, Wiki has apologized for - and for which you have been admonished. BUT since then, Ronin has read the entry above whereby it is insinuated/opening the innuendo that he forged the EUREKA certificate. And he has gone ballistic. He is a VERY terse Russian. For the last time, I cannot control Ronin. He never supported the article. Read the email in the collapsed section. I have said this so many times now, together with the embarrassment it has caused me. And if he chooses to escalate, I CANNOT stop him. Look at the email - does it look like a Russian wrote it - or a lawyer? You're talking abut a very senior academic, who was the head of Minsk Research Unit for eight years, before, DESPITE being a soviet citizen, being one of the VERY RARE few that was "allowed" to move to Sweden THIRTY years ago. You've no idea what that guy has been through. For it all to come to "nought" on page which should NEVER have been started - for grounds which Wiki has apologised for. Do you now see how ridiculous this all is - and why AfDs should NOT be started without discussing first? I have ALWAYS understood the wisdom of that Wiki policy in that regard. It's abacadarian. Yet it has been ignored, so many times, that half of it could be enough. The history in the collapsed section shows it. As a matter of record. And that includes the images that were nearly deleted when you could have asked first. The subject was even covered page-up page-down in the first AfD - an NO one took issue with them. Jono2013 (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the basis that the gentleman appears to have all the necessary attributes to pass our notability threshold. That the article on Ronin has become embroiled in some unpleasing interactions over a form of concrete is unhelpful. That article and this are separate, and each must stand or fall on its own merits. We need to be adult enough to separate the topics entirely. Here we have a published academic. Generally folk of his calibre are included. It seems bizarre that people are nitpicking. If the article needs an edit, then edit it, but the bloke passes the entry criteria. Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please allow me to very gently point out that "published academic" covers most of the professoriat. WP:PROF c1 appears to be the most appropriate test here. The civil engineering profession is thoroughly covered by citation databases, e.g. WoS, and these show he has only a few publications and that those publications have not been highly cited, as the test requires (please see my !vote above). The controversy here is unfortunate and I have tried very gently to advise Jono2013 of the way WP works and what would be more productive for him/her to do to help this article. I don't think it's helpful to categorize routine AfD debate as "nitpicking". We are all chasing-down claims/sources, but so far nothing is panning out. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. This article is a blatant advertisement. A search in Science Citation Index shows only one publication by this author quoted only four times. This is happening because he publish in places that are not even included in Scientific Citation Index database. Plain non-notable. (A disclosure: I am a convinced "inclusionist" and almost never vote "delete"). My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• More Information. It has been asserted several times above that Ronin has "published a paper with the US National Academies", but further requested details have not been forthcoming. This claim has obvious bearing and relevance to Ronin's notability because it implies publication in PNAS, the official and highly prestigious journal of the US Nat. Acad. of Sciences. The paper in question actually turns out to be a presentation at a 2010 conference that was organized by the Transportation Research Board, an Academy sub-committee and then "published" by EMC Cement BV, a Swedish corporation, in their "technical report series". Consequently, I think the claim of having "published a paper with the US National Academies" is highly misleading, at best. This report appears in GS, but has never been cited. This paper is also in the Energetically modified cement article and its incomplete citation there is also somewhat misleading. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Also notice in that same paper that as of its presentation date Dr. Ronin is listed as only an adjunct professor. The paper is also incorrectly labeled as "peer-reviewed" when in fact it was only reviewed by a single professor at the same university. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument about what should and should not be in the article, surely. Fiddle Faddle 17:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, no. This report has apparently never been cited by any other book, published paper, etc., which is not surprising because it's never been published and which further indicates it has not had any impact on the field. This is not surprising, since most significant developments in civil engineering are published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. For example, some of the high-impact journals in this immediate sub-field are: Trans. Res. B, Materials and Structures, Transportation, Computers and Concrete, ASCE J. Structural Eng., J. Materials in Civil Eng., Cem. Concr. Res., etc. Ronin has published a few articles in the last journal there, but these have cited only very lightly (see my !vote above for figures). Rather, much of his work seems to have been at conferences. The general convention in CE, as with most branches of engineering is that, significant/important conference material goes on to be published. What it boils down to is that the field Ronin works in is extremely well-covered by the usual bibliographic tools. Consequently, it's very easy to see notable contributions, where they exist, and vice versa. I'm afraid the picture is pretty clear. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Is there really a journal called Computers and Concrete??? EEng (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, yes. KAIST is a good university so this looks legit to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really doubt it, but it seems like such a narrow intersection of topics, and unidirectional too -- I mean, it's obvious computers can be used in concrete work, but it's hard to imagine what applications concrete finds in computers. EEng (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The journal web site says it is devoted to modeling and computation. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I am really surprised that we are still having this conversation. We need at least one RS about the person to establish notability, but we have none. He did not publish anything in high-profile journals, but even if he published 20 papers in Nature and PNAS, that would not be especially relevant. What counts is citation index. A typical citation index of an established scientific researcher is at least several hundred, usually several thousand, however this person was cited only four times based on ISI search. This is simply ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Low citation index is a proof that his research has not made any "significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline". My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date of publication is irrelevant to notability (not saying that this is notable) -- if someone published at a time when citation indexes are not helpful, we use other means. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Keep although the citation figures are very low for the inventor of a claimed revolutionary technology, the citation level in the applied aspects of civil engineering tend to run rather low. Even though there are few actual peer reviewed papers, this is a field where technical reports have a rather high degree of importance. Weak keep, not keep, because if the award were truly important , it would be better sourced. The subject seems not responsible for the promotionalism of this article and the one on his invention; if he were, I would not be saying keep. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Energetically modified cement if that is kept, and delete if it isn't. Doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF as noted by Ray. Sideways713 (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This biography article looks like WP:SOAP and possibly WP:COI. Unfortunately. My very best wishes (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2013 (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.

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. Removing puffery or promotional material is an editorial issue, and one that can be concentrated on now that this shambles is over. Jono2013 - if you are indeed "a 58-year old retired life sciences professor from one of the world's leading universities" I would expect you to be able to behave better than the below indicates. Please do so - this is a collegial website. Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Energetically modified cement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This appears to be WP:SPAM by user: Jono2013 Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC). PS - I have been informed, much to my surprise, by user:Jono2013 that I have apparently withdrawn the nomination for deletion. user:Jono2013 was further very helpful in removing the AFD tag from his article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NO THE ARTICLE WAS WITHDRAWN FOR DELETION BY ANOTHER USER THAT PROPOSED IT OVER 7 DAYS AGO. THE PROCESS WAS EXTENSIVE AND SICEN THEN THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN AWARDED A BARNSTAR. SO STOP WASTING MY TIME. Jono2013 (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• Note - This article was previously listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energetically Modified Cement ("EMC Cement"). The result was Withdrawn by nominator. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• NOT ONLY WAS IT WITHDRAWN BUT I HAVE SINCE BEEN AWARDED A BARNSTAR FOR IT. THIS IS NOTHING BUT VANDALISM BY A USER WHO POSTS A PICTURE OF A NAKED WOMAN ON HIS USER PAGE. WHEREAS EMC IS SERIOUS REPORTING OF SERIOUS SCIENCE OF NOTABLE ACADEMIC DISTINCTION. Jono2013 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actions of other editors have no influence on the quality or reliability of an article. Your personal attack on the nominator is not going to help you especially as their is reasonable doubt about the scientific independence of mr. Ronin. The Banner talk 01:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article appears to be very promotional, but the topic is notable enough to keep. It has been discussed in research journals such as Cement and Concrete Research ("Mechanism for performance of energetically modified cement versus corresponding blended cement") and Cement and Concrete Composites ("Microstructure and performance of energetically modified cement (EMC) with high filler content"). I think the article can be trimmed of its overly promotional tone to reveal the kernel of technology. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me???? WHERE is it promotional? It is discussing the phenomenon in a manner which is substantiated by over 50 journal entries spanning 20 years. Dont just use words, justify them. The journal entries you mention are just two of them, and are listed in the references. You've not written ONE scientific article let alone have any background in what is a highly specialized and rarefied discipline. Have you even read the talk page of the article? For godsake. Jono2013 (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm... One might think I would be treated better since I said "keep" and not "delete". Regarding the promotional tone, I am an expert in English writing and in encyclopedia writing. I have written more than 100 Wikipedia articles, most of which are fairly good if not really good quality. I think that is experience enough to give me a valid opinion regarding the tone of your article. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think your point or opinion has any scientific basis. You are NOT an expert on scientific writing. NOR explaining context of complex scientific concepts to a "general audience" such as yourself. None whatsoever.n Wikipedia is very very very poorly supported in this extremely rarefied academic discipline. Do you care about that or do you care about using words that you do not substantiate. Have you read the article's talk page? Are you aware that this article had its previous nomination withdrawn?

Just so you know, I am a 58-year old retired life sciences professor from one of the world's leading universities. I UNDERSTAND what makes a good journal entry. I also UNDERSTAND when an article has been vandalized for improper motives. Look at my entries to the Krebs cycle, whereby I discovered that a Hungarian nationalist vandalized the page. And guess what - he has NO background in SCIENCE, but an AWFULLY long background in writing about Hungarian history and Hungarian nationalism.

I HAVE SINCE BEEN AWARDED A BARNSTAR FOR THE ARTICLE AND IT AND HAS HAD EXTENSIVE INPUT OF User:Northamerica1000

Kind regardsJono2013 (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see how this is promotional at all. There might be a few sentences here and there that could be construed that way, but i'm really not seeing it. And the notability of the subject seems to be very evident from the sources already present in the article. This AfD seems like a waste of everyone's time. Silverseren^C 22:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and Jono, please just calm down. All caps has never helped anyone in a discussion. Silverseren^C 22:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your voice of support. I use CAPS for the same of emphasis because I am sick and tired of having to justify the page. This is now the SECOND time in little more than a week that the page was nominated for deletion. So is this how it works on Wiki eh? A page is nominated and withdrawn for nomination AND yet at any time any Tom Dick or Harry can start the entire process from "Scratch" AGAIN - causing a serious DEFACEMENT to the page in the meantime? There is nothing promotional in the article. These points were made precisely ONE WEEK ago. NOWHERE does the article discuss commercialization efforts, patent exploitation, patent coverage etc.

You will note, I hope, that the user who has strongly backed the page then edited it. You'll also note that user's interests. In other words, someone who likely understands the subject matter and its significance.

To underscore the significance of the article, I have even set out a careful section on the Talk page, last week. This was to prevent further "sniping" from editors who understood nothing about the subject, but whom, I HOPED would MODERATE their posture BEFORE nominating for deletion. How more plain speaking and thoughtful can an author be?

YET it was all in vain. Yet again, the page is nominated for deletion without even discussing first - which is a clear violation of wiki policy. Meanwhile the user who nominated it, is free to paste offensive pictures towards women on his user page. Check it out for yourself.

Not happy with that, the same user then has to nominate for deletion the PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE accompanying STUB. See, here: Vladimir Ronin

Not prepared to discuss first, what's his justification? "Vanity"! "Vanity"? - a COMPLETE insult to a highly esteemed academic in a very rarefied field - who only "crime" has been to NOT defend himself.

I'm going to repeat what I said there: "Am I, as a 58 year old retired senior life sciences academic, am supposed to defend the entry of a noted academic, who has published even with the US National Academies, by virtue of an unsubstantiated nomination made by a user who flouts wiki policy and posts a deeply disrespectful picture of a woman on his user page? Shameful."

Such "feral" behavior will kill wikipedia ever being a font of serious applied science. If serious academics like me have suffer such torrent of abuse when I have simply volunteered my time to add to Wiki?

Have you seen the lack of science on Wiki about the subject matter comprised in the EMC article? Are you aware just how poorly researched the entries for pozzolans etc are. Are you aware the wild inaccuracies on the pozzolans page?

I am seriously questioning my own wisdom of writing the page. I had no idea it would open such a Pandora's Box of unfounded attack. Never again will I contribute. There! It has lost the support of a serious and noted (albeit retired) academic. All because "editors" IGNORE Wiki policy and IMMEDIATELY mark the article for deletion WITHOUT first discussing.

Two nominations in a little more than a week. Regarding a VERY serious SCIENTIFIC article.

My ire is genuine. But not directed at you. At all.

Jono2013 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – per source availability and the depth-of-coverage of many sources, this topic passes Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Source examples include:

• Mechanism for performance of energetically modified cement versus corresponding blended cement
• Microstructure and performance of energetically modified cement (EMC) with high filler content
• High Performance Concretes with Energetically Modified Cement (EMC)
• Winter concreting with the use of energetically modified cement (EMC)
• Performance of Energetically Modified Cement (EMC) and Energetically Modified Fly Ash (EMFA) as Pozzolan
• Effects of EMC Technology on the Fluidity and Strength of RPC
• PRO 4: International RILEM Conference on Concrete: From Material to Structure
• Ultra high performance concrete (UHPC): proceedings of the International Symposium on Ultra High Performance Concrete, Kassel, Germany, September 13-15, 2004
• Nordic Concrete Research

— Additionally, more sources are available. The article's text and content is not overtly promotional, and information about the topic is presented in an objective manner. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 14. Snotbot  t • c »  00:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but for goodness sake, Jono2013, you need to stop being disruptive, both in AfDs, and by removing AfD tags from articles. You also need to stop accusing people of vandalism, and shouting at them in caps - even those who have voted Keep have been abused here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you any idea the "disruption" caused by having a article nominated twice over for deletion in little more than a week, despite the first nomination being withdrawn??? After a month's work? Is this going to happen again in a week? By another generalist? Without even discussing first?? My motives are pure and simple. I have labored this - and I have written many well regarded journal entries that have been peer reviewed. See entry below. And yes, I take exception to "editors" marking the page for deletion without having the COURTESY to discuss first. Why should I show any courtesy to such a person? and until you have originated a complex substantive specialist subject on here, and then had it happen to you, I trust you will give me the "benefit of the doubt next time", before giving the impression of criticizing my posture. If, as an 18 year old, you are still completing your "A" levels, then have in mind, if you are considering a move into University, that you have to be prepared to justify one's conduct. Unlike here, whereby any Tom Dick or Harry can mark an article for deletion.

For all I know the user could be the "front" for a competing academic, or a fully paid up member of the Portland cement industry. Indeed, for all I know, the person who marked it for deletion is the same person who marked it for deletion the first time around - having in mind the first time, was by a user whose account was created after this article was first published, and having in mind the user at the top created his account on or around the nomination to the first deletion was removed. Do you follow? Jono2013 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - yes, it's an obvious keep, but the article needs to be quietened down with a lot fewer adjectives. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggested edits to this entry. Re "quieting down", one man's meat is another mans posion. There are already two entries above whereby the editors are vouching for its objectivity. And I can assure you there is nothing "nonobjective" towards describing (say) a certain property in a superlative manner if that superlative adds meaning. For example, (although the article does not mention it) when discussing the "slump" qualities of an EMC Concrete as "excellent" - then to the reader who is understands "slump", then "excellent" is a term of art. It is an efficient and parsimonious term which has real meaning in the "real world" of the "concrete practitioner". You may not know this. In other words, just because something looks "non quiet" may not necessarily be so.

I have promised on your talk page, that I will review them and check for accuracy. For example, you changed the text:

All energetically modified cements have field-usage potential depending on the performance characteristics required, which can often be a reflection of the mechanical loads expected together with the ambient environment of the project concerned. Energetically modified cements having the greatest field-use potential are those made from fly ash and natural pozzolans — on account of their relative abundance, the performance characteristics of the respective EMC, the relatively high Portland cement replacement-ratios made available by EMC Activation using these raw materials, together with the associated energy and carbon dioxide savings.

to

The usefulness of energetically modified cements depends on the performance characteristics required, based on the mechanical loads expected and the ambient environment. The most useful EMCs are those made from fly ash and natural pozzolans — on account of their relative abundance, the performance characteristics of the respective EMC, the relatively high Portland cement replacement-ratios made available by EMC Activation using these raw materials, together with the associated energy and carbon dioxide savings.

This change is inaccurate. ALL have field usage potential. "Usefulness" is an "amorphous" term and is not used in the discipline. Further, your change is stating that that the most USEFUL are the ones made from NP and FA. This is not technically true either, without academic support. However, what can be said was what was stated before, as the field usage potential is not necessarily down to physical properties per se, which is what "USEFUL" implies. Rather it is on account of the various factors.

You can be assured that where you have trimmed the grammar, I will probably retain. But where "simplicity" has been substituted for precision, the latter must prevail.

Ive looked at some of your changes, and, without prejudice to the caveat above, I like 'em. I'm a 58-year old retired life sciences (senior) academic and I have never claimed a "monopoly" on written English. so your input is appreciated. Ive have worked over a month on it and yet in the space of little more than a week it has been placed for deletion TWICE. I find the whole fandango extremely stressful - I have had journal entries accepted with much less aggravation. The problem is, that I suspect that the article is a victim of its own "success". In that, I have spent a lot of time contextualising the points, so that what is a very "rarefied" subject is -in effect- also "colloquialised" for the generalist. This subject, in its journal entries can be densely mathematical for example. I suspect that the page is now so "user friendly" at a "generalist level", that editors of a non-technical background are missing the truth: this is highly specialized. For example, there are some very technical entries in my own "discipline" life sciences - one only need consider the entries for the various substrates etc that pertain to the Krebs Cycle. See for example the entry to Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (an old nutshell of mine). A generalist should not - or at least if they are prudent, would not - edit these entries, or the article is denuded of their merit. Indeed, stronger than that: no person should edit such entries unless there ARE specialists in the area (typos and grammar "howlers" aside).

And as for nominating a page for deletion? I wont even begin to describe the "insult" that a generalist's nomination to such extent causes, when that person has not even had the courtesy to discuss first.

These issues throw up an issue for me: Wikipedia needs a separate policy for scientific articles. Anyone seeking to amend or modify should be required to state their background on an article's talk page. We should have the benefit for such transparency. Of course, it has to be taken on trust. And after all, there is nothing wrong in being "inter-discipline" either. Look at me...I am an "enthusiast" in the "Victorian amateur" sense.

So by all means, given your engineering background, Im very pleased to have your input "on board". I was simply stating that this "old academic" still remembers his "cardinals" ---- and that also means that when traducing a piece also for a "generalist" audience, I will always make that extra effort (I may not always get it spot on - but the intention is always there. Rest assured).

I trust you take this in the spirit intended. And thank you again. Jono2013 (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep NPASR keep with a serious warning to Jono2013 that this kind of behavior isn't acceptable. Sideways713 (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you any idea the "disruption" caused by having a article nominated twice over for deletion in little more than a week, despite the first nomination being withdrawn??? After a month's work? Is this going to happen again in a week? By another generalist? Without even discussing first?? My motives are pure and simple. I have labored this - and I have written many well regarded journal entries that have been peer-reviewed. See entry above - you will see that not only am I senior, but moreover, I am not a prig. And yes, I take exception to "editors" marking the page for deletion without having the COURTESY to discuss first. Why should I show any courtesy to such a person? and until you have originated a complex substantive specialist subject on here, and then had it happen to you, I trust you will give me the "benefit of the doubt next time", before giving the impression of criticizing my posture.

For all I know the user could be the "front" for a competing academic, or a fully paid up member of the Portland cement industry. Indeed, for all I know, the person who marked it for deletion is the same person who marked it for deletion the first time around - having in mind the first time, was by a user whose account was created after this article was first published, and having in mind the user at the top created his account on or around the nomination to the first deletion was removed. Do you follow? Jono2013 (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the original nomination had been closed regularly as a keep then nominating the same article again a week later would indeed be disruptive; it wasn't, though. This wasn't the greatest nomination ever but it also isn't a personal attack against you; acting as if you've been mortally insulted is much more disruptive than the nomination was.

If you're an academic, good for you, but guidelines and policies such as assuming good faith, behaving civilly and not removing AfD templates apply even to academics, and they apply no matter how disruptive you think someone else is being. You can't keep ignoring Wikipedia rules. Also, keep in mind that credentials aren't much use at Wikipedia; that you know something isn't good enough unless reliable sources know it as well, and a reliable source is just as reliable if provided by a non-academic.

Most of us are experts on something. Saying science articles should be only written by science experts is no different from claiming athletics articles should only be written by athletics experts; in both cases, the output would be worse. The bulk of errors may be introduced by non-experts, but so is much of the perfectly good material - moreover, people who aren't experts on [insert your favorite topic] may still have a better understanding of Wikipedia and what an article should be like. Sideways713 (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not acting as if I am being "mortally insulted". I am simply responding to a needless "personalisation" against me. You did not have to seek to admonish me. And please, the EMC page is more than a months work, with the input of several leading academics, none of which are Ronin (as was explained during the first AfD process). The point is: for the second time, in just over a week the page is nominated for deletion without discussing first. A clear violation of wiki rules and "civility". And i dont agree with you that reposing in the manner I have is "disruptive". AfD is a VERY extreme step.

Regarding the remainder, Im not attacking your opinion, you're entitled to it. But regarding scientific articles, I could not disagree with you more. I do not support the "what is food for the goose is food for the gander". I repeat, any entry on wiki which requires "specialist" input should be require the writer to state their background on the article's talk page. In fact, what you are proposing is the main reason why so many academics do not allow Wiki as a source for their undergraduates - because when it comes to science, there is no statement of attribution. Besides which, have you seen the entries to the Krebs cycle. See for example the entry to Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (an old nutshell of mine). I can say, they are accurate, although some of the entries to the latter entry, I could "pick apart" if I really so chose. But they represent entries on the subjects at a depth beyond undergraduate biochemistry level. Why should EMC be denuded of the same rigor? I just dont understand. You may have noted that the user "Chiswick Chap" has already denuded the page of its accuracy. Grammar changes, fine - but if one is editing a page of grammar, then that is surely a "pedant's point"? But the central point is this: What is the point of an encyclopedia if it is not accurate? And this could have been averted on the page's talk page. I now have to spend hours "picking apart" his multiple edits to "salvage" the article. Is that fair, when all along I have set out two entries on the talk page already, last week so as to prevent this entire fandango happening again? Regards Jono2013 (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of an article is not determined by how much work has been put into it, but by completely different factors. Particularly important are the following, which you seem to have problems grasping:

1. All information must be verifiable with no original research whatsoever. While Energetically modified cement has plenty of references, it could use many more; many statements aren't referenced at all. For instance, there are many explanatory notes that are unreferenced; I can easily believe that they're accurate, but verifiability and citing reliable sources are the important things. It isn't enough that you know something; you need to give us reliable sources.

2. Articles must not be promotional and have to follow our key policy of neutral point of view. As many have already said, your article here emphasises how brilliant EMC is, and that's a very serious problem.

Look, for instance, at this sentence:

Notably, unlike Portland cement production which can release a number of noxious particulate and gaseous pollutants (including mercury), EMC Activation releases no noxious pollutants.

"Notably" is a word to avoid unless it can be very reliably sourced. (Who's saying this is notable? Answer: you. That kind of editorializing doesn't belong here.) The emphasis for "no" is even more unacceptable. Never mind that I can't find anything in the ref given about releasing no noxious pollutants whatsoever; it just says environmental costs are reduced...

It's issues like this that made the nominator call the page spam; while that is (as Chiswick Chap said) an overstatement, there's a very definite promotional tone.

Furthermore, contrary to what you seem to think, there are no guidelines saying articles can't be nominated without discussing the matter first; on the contrary, that's perfectly normal. Nominators are strongly encouraged to notify the article's main contributors after the article has been nominated for deletion, but not to consult them before nomination. Also, keep in mind that the article doesn't belong to you; it's Wikipedia's article, not yours. You keep telling other editors what they can and can't do with "your" article... but it's everybody's article now, and other editors are free to improve it.

To see what better science articles look like, see for example Neptune. That was written by people who aren't astronomers, and it has none of the problems your article has. Sideways713 (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and severely admonish or block Jono2013. His misbehavior made me come into this AfD with a predisposition towards deleting the article. But my standard for articles on research topics is WP:GNG, that they must be the subject of multiple reliable independent publications. Most of the EMC publications in Google scholar involve a group centered around V. Ronin, but there are enough that don't such as this one to convince me that this topic is sufficiently notable. On the other hand, I think far too much of the article is promotional in nature (stressing the benefits of this technology and downplaying its deficiencies) and based on primary sources (Ronin-co-authored publications) and that it should be cut back to what can be verified through independent sources only. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you refer to cites an unrefereed paper by Ronin and gives an unfavorable report of energy modified concrete. One swallow (or rather a lame duck) does not make a summer. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

What makes you an expert to assume that EMC has any "deficiencies", other than as stated on the entry (namely that it can never fully replace Portland cement, unless that is, Portland cement itself undergoes EMC Activation)???? Can you please answer this so that we are clear and I can elucidate to quell your concerns. I'll take your other points later. Kind regards Jono2013 (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nom's "spam" is too strong, but there is a definite promotional tone, far too much repetition, and dare I say it, a severe dose of WP:TLDR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've started an ANI thread about Jono2013's conduct here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 15. Snotbot  t • c »  20:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm guessing the above bot comment means that Jono2013 tried to remove the article from the logs again? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually it looks like the bot is confused by the title not matching the discussion link. (that's not it.) I'm guessing the bot is confused. No one has tried to remove it from a log that I can find. Oh, and please don't poke the bear. Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Comment: Sounds like a misunderstanding. Don't know enough about the subject to judge myself. But it looks pretty workmanlike. Most particualry, wikipedia needs expert editors. We should endevor to be nicer to them. Jewishprincess (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is clearly encyclopedic. Any promotional references can be removed rather than deleting the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Be civil and avoid flaming. I haven't ready enough of this AfD discussion to know why there is so much flaming, but this AfD is getting uncivil. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Based on the most of the comments here, it looks as though this article will be kept, but Jono2013 won't be around to edit it. You could make a strong case that Jono2013 knows how to state his case, since the article looks like it may be kept, but I'd argue that the impartial efforts of the Wikipedia editors involved in this AfD are the reason that the article may be kept, and that Jono2013 has much to learn about stating his case in a civil manner. This article may be kept in spite of, not because of, his efforts. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir: Can you kindly keep you highly patronizing pejorative statement to yourself. I am NOT attacking the editors impartiality. I am failing to make a certain few understand that this article is a victim of its own success. And that is down to MY writing. I have taken a HIGHLY specialized subject, TWENTY years of considerable research - considerable field results and written it in such a way, that any Tom Dick or Harry thinks they can tell me how to write it. I am a 58 year old retired (senior) life sciences academic. The reason why this article is attracting generalist comments, is because I KNOW how to teach highly a complex subject - namely biochemistry - to undergrads. But, no matter how much I have labored it, still WITHOUT discussion, users decide to deface the bed-sheets. One user on here has caused so much damage to the article, in that one cardinal aspect that an encyclopedia requires: ACCURACY. It will take me HOURS to rectify. Despite going to the trouble to set out matters on the Articles's talk page. Jono2013 (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep WP:SNOW. This is obviously not spam. I can't think of any way this nomination could be spun as an AGF. Transcendence (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And where was the article "promotional"??? OH! My oh my:

(i) I used the word "notably" to start a sentence.

(ii) I didn't set out "deficiencies". WHY? Simply because EMC has NO "deficiencies". Remember more concrete has been poured made from EMC, in the U.S., than the entire amount of concrete poured in the Hoover dam. But still I get users such as Eppstein above (who is, by all accounts, a credible academic in computer sciences) ASSUMING there MUST be deficiencies. NO there are NOT.

Which is WHY the Portland Cement industry spent millions of dollars (i) Fighting the EMC patent in Europe (they lost) and having lost that case, why they then (via CEMBUREAU) infiltrated the European Commission to re-write the Cement Standard. And all of this is on record. EMC Cement even took the European Commission to the European Court of Justice over it.

The are NO deficiencies. This is probably the most significant advancement in cementitious technology since the advent of Portland Cement itself 200-odd years ago. And the Portland cement industry jolly well knows it. The prescriptive nature of the European Cement standard is all the PROOF one needs to confirm how desperate they were/are to keep EMC out of Europe. Because the prescriptive aspects of that standard only came about because of the failed attempts to block the EMC patent.

There is no SPAM in the article. EMC is a technological marvel. There is nothing close to it in cementitious technology in terms of energy and CO2 savings, or the field results. Nothing. Punkt schulss. And the Portland cement industry knows it. Spent millions fighting the EMC patent. A 5 year battle.

And that this article was nominated twice for AfD without discussing first, within the space of little more than a week, the second time just a few days after the first nomination was withdrawn, speaks for itself.

Kind regards Jono2013 (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or stubbify to 5% of present length. Google scholar cites for "Energetically modified cement" are 28, 12, 33, 4, 5, 23, 2, 44, 22... which is feeble for a technology that is claimed to be so important. It seems that industrial researchers have not yet taken a great deal of interest in the subject. The ball-milling of cement is not a new technology. We would usually require circa 1000 cites to have an article about a subject. Perhaps too early. Further, the grossly excessively promotional tone of the article is a discredit to Wikipedia's reputation. The wall-of-text responses by the article's promoters do not help either. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• It is PATENTED. Why WOULD "industrial researchers" be allowed? Where on god's planet are you on? Are you seriously suggesting that your comment displays any experience of the "real world"?
• Where is the rule "requires 1000 citations". WHERE???? Why are you sating "WE" as if you are speaking on behalf of Wikipedia?
• TWENTY years. Have you READ the entry I laid out immediately above? Have you understood the significance of the volumes poured?
• FEEBLE? Do you have ANY idea just how CONSERVATIVE advanced material sciences is? This is a subject that has generated independent journal entries from Academic researchers as far afield as Illinois, to Cambridge, to two universities in China. :Jesus! It's down to Google scholar is it?
• "Grossly Excessive promotional tone" - WHERE?

This just never stops.

Jono2013 (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who "we" is, but I highly doubt a majority of Wikipedia's articles have over 1000 citations that are independent and reliable. Transcendence (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Contrary to the article creator's voluminous protestations, this article is nothing more than a promotional attempt to sell the EMC method to industry. I've taken the liberty of asking the 57 year old degreed industrial chemist that occupies the other end of my couch to take a look at the article and she instantly recognized the excessively promotional tone of the article, as she has been on both sides of sales presentations such as this. One whole section of the article is referenced by nothing more than EMC's own sales presentation. Another section uses the publication of a private test as a reference, where private testing is seldom peer-reviewed. The author has done an excellent job of putting together a promotional presentation in an attempt to industrialize the method. However, promotional presentations do not belong on Wikipedia. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is now the third occasion that you have -in effect- impugned my "good faith". The first two times were over the images, in respect of which you accused me first of being a "liar" then accused me of "committing a fraud". As you know, this caused you to be admonished. But although I set these out on this page, you chose to collapse them (see collapsed section above).

The accusations made against Ronin also, caused him to write directly to wiki, and he received an apology from Wiki, both in terms of the attacks made against him, and also the attacks against me. But again, although I set these out on this page, as a matter of record, you chose to collapse them.

You have also made a number of hostile - unfounded allegations - citing a supposed "couch buddy". So let me again re-istall PART of the history leading up to where we are today, that you collapsed

1. The EMC article starts life as an insert to the Portland Cement page, because someone unknown, had ALREADY placed a article on there about 4 years ago.'

2. I was concerned about its accuracy. I contacted Ronin about 2 years ago. He declines my offer for an article. Then, after my "constant badgering" he agrees to send me images for the page. Hence I wrote a initial article about EMC, again on the Portland Cement page, where the orignal was posted.

3. After working on it for about 2 weeks, I decided there was enough material to formulate a new article. I publish the article for the first time on 24 April 2013.

4. On 26 April the User "Cloudyjbg27512" joins wiki, from what I can tell.

5. On 3rd May, 2013, it is "AfD"'d, by Cloudyjbg27512. NO discussion first.

6. After EXHAUSTIVE justification, and kindly input from Northamerica1000, I further develop the page. During the process, every entry was KEEP. During this process, I add extensively to the EMC page.

7. On 7 May, the nominator WITHDRAWS the nomination

8. I am awarded a "barnstar" for the article on 7 May 2013

I have no connection to EMC, moreover as has been made plain so many times ad nausem - Ronin does NOT support the article. The email he sent to Wikipedia confirms this. But although I set this out on this page, you chose to collapse it (see collapsed section above).

If you are saying I have a COI, then state it plainly: But be aware that was ventilated fully during the first AfD, which was withdrawn - and received NUMEROUS keeps. To my recollection, not one deletion. Be aware too that up until the withdrawal of the first deletion, I had been working with a group of noted academics on this subject. NO ONCE did Ronin contribute to anything. This said, they were so disgusted with the entire process, they will no longer support me.

Now this process drags on. You now use that opportunity to raise a number of spurious unsubstantiated allegations. And top it of with the only "delete". You've had multiple opportunities to have your say. But now, to marshal some "cover" of support, you make allegations which are not only unfounded and unsubstantiated but are just wrong. I am not even going to labor it, because if I do, i get accused of "walls-of-text".

On top of that, you will see your earlier addition (collapsing the important items of record) to this one, caused the bot to malfunction. Instead of 'fessing up - when the user Lukeno94 accused ME of causing it, rather than telling him to stop making accusations against me, you state "please dont poke the bear". Ha Ha. Very funny. Not.

Jono2013 (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What Jono2013 fails to understand is that there is a productive way to state his case, but it's clearly a foreign concept to him. Spouting much of the same information repeatedly in longwinded rants with varying degrees of snark is not the best way to win people over. It's admirable that several editors here are trying to save the EMC page when they could easily step back from this conversation. You sound off on people regardless of their vote, regardless of their reasons for their votes, and regardless of how poorly your diatribes reflect on yourself. Now, I'm not suggesting that mere civility on a Talk Page is enough to keep an article from being deleted, but if I was fighting to keep a page that was important to me, I would most certainly use a more cordial approach. Food for thought. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Rants", "snark", "spouting", "longwinded", "sound off", "foreign concept". Anything else? "Several"? Do you realize how many have supported this? I am defending the page. That's all. Simply because there are no downsides to the technology other than the one set out on the page, the page is attacked for being "promotional" by those who cannot get their heads around that. Meanwhile, Ronin is the one who is attacked (including: that his bio stub entry that I wrote is "vanity" and that - get this - he forged his EUREKA award). A living named scientist of impeccable standing. To which he has written to Wikipedia, Wikipedia has apologized, including for the allegations that I was called first a "liar" and then that I had committed a "fraudulent act". Meanwhile Uncle Milty is admonished, so he now comes back a third time and essentially accuses me of "bad faith". Despite the record (but, not that you should read that because Uncle Milty collapsed the record). And then his "Dont poke the bear" comment when, all along, it was his editing to the page that caused the bot malfunction. But of course, I get blamed for that too. And you say I should tolerate this obvious form of bullying... by instead (yet again) personalizing against me. Jono2013 (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the simple basis that it passes WP:GNG. Any other faults may be removed by editing. Fiddle Faddle 07:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to explain your simple basis for passing WP:GNG more fully? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Votes without arguments are sometimes ignored. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment If you do not have a COI Jono2013, why are you behaving in this manner, which is consistent with someone that has a COI? And, given that you've disruptively removed AfD tags on more than one occasion, please state to me why it is inconceivable that you attempted to do the same with the AfD log. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If an article on wikipedia has secondary reliable source and the subject is not original research it passes wikipedia requirements. It is true independent of whether Jono2013 has a COI or not. There are tons of secondary reliable sources for this article and if it has some promotional issues deletion or making a stub is not a solution. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there's spam, and then there's WP:SPAM. This appears to have become the former. The advertizing tone can be fixed by normal editing. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article is a splendidly written piece of public relations for the proponents of this technology. But the more I look into the article the flimsier the evidence for notability becomes. The ball milling of concrete is a well-established technology. People are always trying out source materials and processes that are cheaper and have better properties. This is just one of them. It is not easy to find from the article exactly what advance is being claimed. The article states that well-known materials are treated with a "patented process" which is not defined apart from being called "EMC activation". If this is ball milling then it is nothing new. So the article does not even describe what it is supposed to be about. Anybody can apply for a patent and get one granted with only slight ingenuity so the obtaining of a patent is nothing impressive. Looking into the sources offered by the article I find that many of them originate from Ronin, who the article's proponent confesses he has been in contact with. Some sources are just about concrete in general, there are not many sources that are truly independent of entities with an interest in this particular technology. The lack of peer recognition, evidenced by so little presence in the research citation indices, is telling. The article's proponent attributes this to the conservatism of the materials science community. In my experience, the materials science community is only too quick to show an interest in new and important technologies. They do not seem to have done so here. As I said, the article is skilfully written and, because of this, may look more impressive to people with a lack of contact with industrial technology than to those who have some. I cannot escape the conclusion that the article is commercial advocacy and is therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Added comment: I have looked at the references referred to by editors on this AfD who claim that these references indicate notability for energy modified cement. I find that most of them are authored by Ronin, with whom the article's proponent admits he has some sort of a relationship. I have not yet found any references independent of Ronin, and not many of them, that give a favorable account of energy modified cement. Please let us know if you find any. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

You have imagined a novel notability requirement: that a certain person cannot be an author of the papers conferring notability. Actually, the publication of two industry journal articles about EMC are enough to establish notability per GNG because the journal itself is a third party, independent publication. That publisher can certainly choose not to publish a paper, but it did. The author does not matter, and can certainly be Ronin or anybody else connected with EMC. I linked to two such articles in my 'keep' vote, which is why this article will very likely be kept.

On the other hand, if EMC is not much different than existing industry processes, then that information should be found in Wikipedia, and this article right here is the place to say so, per reliable sources that might be found to support the assertion. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This paper found by Eppstein and independent of Ronin, states "The performances of two cement types, ANL (low alkali sulfate resistant cement) and EMC (Energetically Modified Cement) cements were tested. Despite, many reports [Ronin paper] about the excellent compatibility of EMC to HPC, EMC has shown almost similar results.". Can you produce any source independent of the Ronin research nexus that shows that "Energy modified cement" has become an important technology? If you can it would be a valuable addition to the article. Wikipedia requires multiple independent sources and sources that are associated with only one focus are not independent. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Again, the requirement of the source being "independent" is about the publisher, not the author. If you wrote a couple of research papers on Xxanthippology, and two of those papers were published in two reliable research journals, then Wikipedia would want to host an article about Xxanthippology, despite the fact that you were the author of both. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck vote by meatpuppet IP. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Given that the above IP strongly appears to be Jono2013 - look at their edit history - I have filed this SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jono2013. Also, am I seeing hints of legal threats above? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I commented positively at the SPI. However, I see no legal threat in the IP's reference to a mention higher up about a past patent battle in the European Court of Justice. Binksternet (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I don't read Jono's comments that thoroughly due to the length, and was responding mostly to the IP's comment above. That said, I like the accusations of this being a crusade and cyber-bullying... not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Luke: I am in Sweden. I am Swedish. This is a ridiculous crusade. I thought a lot before contributing on this entry and now I can see it was a mistake because it seems I am now going to get harassed by someone who seems to be on a crusade.

• I do not have any connection with EMC, although I did qualify in Civil Engineering many years ago. I do not mind saying that I have been involved in working on the EMC entry when it was a baby article on the Portland cement page. As a Swede who is very proud of the EMC developments. But this has got to stop. I am one of the people who Jono2013 has consistently mentioned as the people who have been assisting him on certain aspects. He has made no secret about it. I am known to Professor Ronin by virtue of certain projects in Sweden back in the early days of EMC in Sweden and we have kept in contact personally through the years because he is a what we call in Sweden "a quiet warrior". One of the key issues was classification and I was involved in discussing this with Jono2013 and others behind the scenes and and let him get on with it on the main page which you are attacking. If you must know, the professor asked me to keep an eye over Jono2013 but structural from a technical accuracy standpoint. And Jono2013 turned to me when it came to describing certain aspects on the "baby" entry because he was worried he did not have any expertise and the professor did not want to have any part of the page.

• I invited Jono2013 to my house in Sweden so that we could work together on the baby page. That's all. He had never been to Stockholm before so I also spent time showing him around. If you must know.

• For example the insert about the RILEM beam was not written by Jono2013. It was written by me. He passed me the materials he had managed to get from the professor but felt out of his depth.

• Jono2013's limitations then re-surfaced when it was necessary to resolve the issues regarding classification and I was happy to help behind the scenes. But you are missing two points: the classification issue came about because he had made an innocent mistake in calling it "EMC Cement" and this was considered problematice to the other editors during the first deletion process. Jono2013 was struggling with a complex issue. The classification of EMC is very difficult because it is most of the time a cementitious material, but not always. If portland cement is used, then it is a "Cement". So my input was needed as a collaboration. Second point, my collaboration was to ensure accuracy about classifciation so that the page was credible. You are unaware of the development of cementitous materials as an academic strand. It is very very modern. Certain people who know the subject have certain views about what is and what is not a "cementitious material". For example, some people consider blast furnace slag a cementitious material. Personally I do not.

• I am concerned that the bigger picture is being missed here. This page should not be here. So to keep it simple, I have collaborated on the entry when it was a baby entry on Portland Cement because Jono2013 was doing his best but was worried abut accuracy but felt he could not ask for the professor's input. I have not made any modifications or been involved in the main page other than private emails with Jono2013 because I understand more than most the classification "puzzle". This then resurfaced in the first para of the article (the first sentence) where I had to put Jono2013 correct on the first sentence because he had forgotten not to give the impression of blast furnace slag and silica sand are a pozzolan. They are not. Whatever your view as to whether slag is a "cementitious material" is one thing, but one thing it is not, is a pozzolan.

The above highlights a lot of effort has been made behind the scenes to ensure accuracy and precision, in a subject discipline which has no hard limiters. That is what is important. I am also worried that the article is now so accessible that the hard work regarding complex issues is not undone. This is why extreme caution is needed in editing this page as the other entries on "Cementitious materials" and "pozzolans" are worryingly inaccurate. But I am not going to amend them, because I do not want any further harassment, especially from users like Lukeno194, who do not understand the complexities.

If you think the EMC page is just about EMC, you are wrong. It is setting a benchmark for entries on Wikipedia in a subject matter which is missing or very poor. This is why it is a "speedy Keep" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC) — 213.66.81.80 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• In a modified version of your words: I'm not going to dignify that utter bullshit with a response. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The IP has been blocked for a week as a meatpuppet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks indeed like spam and namedropping. And self-healing concrete? Really? The Banner talk 09:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking a bit better in it, it seriously bothers me that one of the sources is a paper for a symposium (This Paper was prepared for the INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE CONCRETE PAVEMENTS: PRACTICES, CHALLENGES, AND DIRECTIONS, held Sep. 15 – 17, 2010, in Sacramento, California) with as remarks at is EMC has produced many papers and journal publications through Dr. Vladimir Ronin, many of which have been written in conjunction with leading academics. Seeing the relationship between Ronin and EMC, it is clear that these sources are not independent. ([9]) The Banner talk 01:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Keep An important technology for cheap and relatively environmentally friendly construction. It's attracted abundant independent coverage from academics and industrial publications. Id agree that compared to other articles on related topics, this one is close to benchmark standard. Could use a little more copy editing, a little NPOV work (more citations to work not directly involving good Professor Ronin , comparison with other HPC techs ) and a little more introductory content. But that would be to pass a GA review - it already stands far above most other articles. Hats off to the creator, thanks for your great work! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any sources (and more than one is needed) independent of the group that developed the technology that confirms that it is "An important technology for cheap and relatively environmentally friendly construction."? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Xxanthippe, we don't need a sources making qualified claims of this techs importance to save the article from deletion. Meeting GNG only needs there to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This has already been demonstrated in sources already provided. Im surprised you'd expect further examples given how you've responded to previous editors to have offered up specific sources. As you've been alluding to ancient Greek proverbs, maybe you'll enjoy the point being made in a mini Aristophanes style comedy. It's based on a true story, you could even add the chorus :-)

Theo: "My good Aristotle, long have I labored to quantify the question you raised about the birds of true love. After years of study, I have found the answer. It takes 333 to make a summer!"

Xxan (interupting): "Bah! What do you mean 333 you silly dove? We would usually require 1000!"

Theo: "OMZ! That's not in any of our guidelines! My whole treatise of to the crows! Never again will I waste time doing such work!" FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 18. Snotbot  t • c »  20:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• A question for those who have voted keep. Can you indicate which sources independent of the group that developed it show that "energetically modified cement" is regarded as a significant industrial technology? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I will go further and say that I cannot find any independent evidence (that is independent of the research group that developed the technology or the corporation, EMC Cement BV [10], set up to promote it) that "energetically modified concrete" has been used in a major project. If anybody finds some they should add it to the article with details. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as promotional article for borderline notable subject. Apparently an appropriate non-promotional article can not be written without discarding this over extensively detailed article on and starting over, as shown by the reverting of even minor changes. I think that deletion is our only practical response to an over-enthusiastic editor who wants to include content beyond the proper reach of an encyclopedia, and cannot be persuaded otherwise. Despite extensive prior discussion, there are still no tertiary sources, just a large number of technical reports. If it were as important as claimed, there would be such sources, and the ed. involved has had every opportunity and every reason to look for them. (If kept, I intend to propose a topic ban on everyone previously editing the article to permit neutral editing. An ed. who insists on including multiple illustration not relevant to the special nature of this material is too much involved to be editing the article: the evidence is in the arguments here --and see the footnote to the article, explaining why the references show the importance--if they did,m the text itself would make it obvious) Xxanthippe's question is very much to the point here. The ed. involved claims expertise. If he is an expert, let him find proper tertiary sources. A true expert would know them immediately--if they existed. The reason we do not accept claims of expertise here as a justification for special editing prerogatives is perfectly shown by this discussion, this article, and the failure to find better sources. Instead, we get repeated claims that it ought to be important. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Firstly, I note that the article is no longer than the one on Portland cement and much shorter than the one on Cold Fusion and I therefore fail to see the relevance in the length of the article in this context. Further, as I demonstrate below and with all due respect, Xxanthippe does not appear to have the expertise required to present an authoritative opinion on EMC. Yet you seem to attache a lot of significance to the views he expresses (which make a lot of sweeping and unsupported assertions that you seem to attach enormous significance to). You seem to have "difficulties" accepting a subject that does not have a "tertiary source". This is not, with respect, Wikipedia policy. This is also supported through a cursory examination of some of the more rarified scientific articles found on Wikipedia. Your generalization does not seem to take into account or balance the accute specialization of pozzolanic concretes and supplemental cementitious matearials which have existed as subjects for about the same time as EMC (over 20 years). A review of the article's references discloses secondary sources, which in this domain of advanced material sciences is highly significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.13.207.104 (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am no expert on the topic but frankly I have not heard before of any "self healing concrete". It seems to me a topic of material science which is comparable to Cold Fusion of physics. Since we have an article on Cold Fusion (which is not a hoax and again not a proven fact) why can we not have an article on Energetically modified cement. Again I repeat I am not an expert. Solomon7968 (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The difference is that cold fusion has generated world-wide interest that persists to this day whereas Energetically modified cement has generated almost no interest apart from that of its promoters. Further, there were claims of independent verification of cold fusion (however much one may doubt them, and I do) but there has been no independent verification of "self healing concrete". Xxanthippe (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Who told you that Energetically modified cement has generated almost no interest apart from that of its promoters. If you have independent secondary reliable sources for your comment add it to the article and clean it up from its promotional material and make it a valid stub. Deletion is (was, will) not a solution. Solomon7968 (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence, please add it to the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• I'm a Keep voter, but I wouldn't say that deletion is not a solution. When faced with someone acting like Jono2013 (whom is willing to use meatpuppets to be disruptive) is, you can be left with two choices: block the user, and keep the article, whilst despamming it, or nuke the article and start from scratch. There's no question that this article is of absurd length and contains too much fluff, even after the input of other editors. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I have been watching this page for some time and am very concerned to say the least. Now we are seeing "self healing" being likened to "cold fusion". This makes it clear that the debate is no longer being driven by experts in the field of pozzolan concrete which should be the case for a professional debate to take place. The article that is nominated for deletion and its talk page makes abundantly clear that this is a highly specialized discipline. If you search for journal entries on "Supplemental Cementitious Materials" you'll be lucky if you get more than a few dozen - in 20 years.

What's important is the final para which shows the enormous volumes of concrete cast. If you go back to Jono's last version (which is what I wanted to see because I wanted to see how the expert had written it) you will see that the projects were in partnership with TxDOT and USFHWA. But you wouldn't know this now because a non expert has removed the text. So the comments of Xxanthippe can be discarded.

"Self healing" concrete is a recognized phenomenon to experts in pozzolan concretes,and can be observed before your very eyes as the pictures accompanying the article demonstrate. So, this is not "cold fusion"; it is a real and observable characteristic - and the fact that some of you are thinking "too good to be true" does not undermine the credibility but brings back the BEAUTY of what an encyclopedia (very occasionally) does as part of its magic: make us all suck in some air and think: WOW!

Comment: with all respect to Xxanthippe his contribution of 05:19 on May 17 indicates a lack of expertise in the field as evidenced by his confusing of the difference between concrete and cement and further by the lack of understanding of the difference between a rotating ball mill and a vibrating ball mill. Concrete is not ground in ball mills, let alone in cement mills. In cement mills clinker is produced which then is ground into cement along with about 5% of gypsum. Cement is then the "glue" that holds sand and gravel together to make concrete used to build homes, office buildings, roads, bridges, dams, etc. In further contrast this milling operation is done in huge rotating ball mills the purpose of which is to grind the clinker into fine particles. As the article makes plane, in contrast, EMC uses different raw materials, e.g. fly ash from coal fired power plants and/or volcanic ash, and different milling systems (vibrating ball mills)the purpose of which is surface activation, not fine grinding.

I believe that all of this is clear to any expert participant and I take support in the fact that not a single participant has appeared with expert comment in support deletion. On the contrary, if you go to Jono2013's talk page you will find that the article has been awarded a SECOND BARNSTAR.

I propose that this entire discussion forum (and most of all the article) should have an {EXPERT} tag and this discussion should now be closed off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.13.207.104 (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC) — 81.13.207.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I second your call for a speedy keep IP. I'd close it myself, only unless this is closed by an admin, there's a risk a deletionist will cause even more distress by putting this up for deletion a third time.

Thanks for your points about "self healing". Its a familiar concept for anyone with a moderate knowledge of Industry in general or material science in particular - I ignored the earlier deletionist attempt at mockery as I thought it just discredited their vote. It did make me LOL to see it from a Dutch editor, as the Netherlands is the leading world center for work on self healing tech.

As even good editors like Solomon7968 dont seem to have heard about self healing materials, I'll give a brief introduction to the concept for a layman. Although Self-healing materials have only received widespread attention in the 21st century, the concept is ancient . Many will have seen a comparable process as a child. If you poke your finger into a wet sand castle, it will often "heal" the hole in only a few seconds. That's a particle level process, actual industrial applications invariably involve molecular or atomic processes. So a better example might be a crack on snowman or iglo, in conditions where the sun raises temperature just above zero, but it's below zero with wind chill. If a fine crack appears on the snowman for whatever reason, some of the snow on the surface can melt, forming drops that bridge the crack. The windchill freeze's these back, and the crack is healed. Moving on to a related industrial application, here's an interesting article Self-Healing Concrete Uses Sunlight to Fix Its Own Cracks.

I can see how an intelligent layman might think self healing materials is comparable to cold fusion, but in fact as you imply it's a totally main stream concept. The more advanced applications like self repairing android handsets etc are still experimental, but basics like self healing mortar repairing its own cracks was known even to the ancient Romans!

PS - as a word to the wise, its best not to assume editors are male, as you did in your comments above. Otherwise, thanks again for your bringing some genuine quality back to this discussion! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the independent evidence that shows that "energetically modified cement" has "self healing" properties? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• For such an experienced editor, FeydHuxtable, I'm surprised you've responded so positively to an IP that has (or at least, had) only made one edit, the above one, and is clearly related in some fashion to the previous IPs and/or Jono2013. Also, making comments about deletionists/inclusionists isn't exactly appropriate to this discussion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, it's Newbies who most deserve friendly and welcoming treatment. One should try to be respectful to everyone of course, but its newbies who can be most expected not to know our guidelines. It looks like Jono was previously conscientious enough to ask a group of fellow experts to help him work on the article, as he wanted it to be as accurate as possible. Most admirable for him to have the intellectual modesty to do that, even though he's a retired professor. It seems perfectly natural for Jono to advise his colleagues of the AfD, and for them to contribute. Im disappointing some have been blocked - if there was concerns about meat puppetry, it would have been more collegiate just to politely let them know about the relevant guidelines. IMO it's totally appropriate for me to warn against the risk of 3rd time wasting AfD if we have another NAC. And btw, you're the one who's first mentioned inclusionists! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am the first to mention them, but you know as well as I do that inclusionist and deletionist arguments are related. Also, considering the way that Jono2013 (and the meatpuppet IPs) have acted towards myself and others - even those whom tried to help (as I did, initially), I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about this user being a good one, and worth giving further time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article should be speedily deleted. There is nothing called Energetically modified cement and Jono2013 should be blocked indefinitely. No need of discussion and that is all. Epic Crusader (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You're obviously new here as your account was created a few days ago, so I'm going to take your statement with a grain of salt. Your statements ignore the fact that there are many sources for this article. Furthermore, this article doesn't satisfy any of the speedy deletion criteria since an argument can be made that it passes [{WP:GNG]] given what appears to be numerous published research papers in peer reviewed venues covering this topic. I'm having a very difficult time understanding why you've made that statement. Transcendence (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also prepared to take a grain of salt with this edit. There may be many sources for the article but how many of them are independent of the interests that are promoting attempting to promote the technology commercially? I have asked this question before but answer came there none. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I read your concerns with the independence of the sources. I disagree with your interpretation of what a reliable source is. Regardless of whether or not most or even all of the sources came from the same researcher, the fact is that the sources are in respected journals. This makes them good enough per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, from which I quote, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable." Transcendence (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted your comments as invalidating the sources. If what you're concerned about is the fact that there are no sources other than those coming from the originators of this technology, then that's a different story. I have no comment at this time since I haven't thoroughly examined the sources. Transcendence (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although a quick glance shows two independent sources already listed:

• Hu, J; Huang, Z; Ma, N (May 2009). "Effects of EMC Technology on the Fluidity and Strength of RPC". Journal of Hunan University (Material Sciences) (in Chinese) 36 (5): 16–20.
• Hasanbeigi, A; Price, L; Lin, E; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL Paper LBNL-5434E (2013). "Emerging Energy-efficiency and CO2 Emission-reduction Technologies for Cement and Concrete Production". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (London: Elsevier Ltd) 16 (8): 6220–6238. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.07.019. ISSN 1364-0321. Transcendence (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting these sources. Unfortunately I don't have full access to either. The first, in Chinese, does not mention "energetically modified concrete" in its title. The second does not mention "energetically modified concrete" in its title, abstract or figure captions. We don't know if these sources mention the topic positively, negatively or at all. If you can produce more of these papers I would be happy to look further. But my concern is not about the reliability of sources. I am concerned about the independence of sources. A few of the article's sources are in refereed research journals and claim results that, after quite a time, have not yet been confirmed by other researchers. A refereed research journal is usually considered to be a reliable source, but nobody believes that everything in a research journal is true (at least not until it is confirmed by independent researchers). The important point here is the article's claim that "energetically modified concrete" is a significant industrial technology. Are there any sources independent of the interests vested in the technology that confirm this claim? I can't find any. If you can find some it would add to credibility of the article, which is flimsy at present. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

EMC is in the title of the Chinese article, which I assume stands for "energetically modified concrete". Someone in HighBeam would probably have access to these articles. Transcendence (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to persuade editors that a source confers notability it is up to you to give them access to the source in some sort of form. Just being mentioned does not confer notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

That statement is false. Sources from the Wikipedia:HighBeam project are available only to those who have access, however those sources are used on Wikipedia. Individuals lacking access do not invalidate those sources. Transcendence (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, see WP:PAYWALL. In particular, "This implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment," It is not incumbent upon me or anyone else to provide you those sources. Those sources are available, even if you have to pay for them. Transcendence (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you are right, being mentioned doesn't confer notability. Our best bet would be to ask someone with Highbeam access. Transcendence (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am Professor of Chemistry in University of California, Berkeley. My research topics include material science, Chemistry and related topics. I am a expert in this field and I can assure you all that this debate of deletion of Energetically modified cement is a waste of time. This article is a pure hoax and can be speedily deleted. Epic Crusader (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment [11],[12],[13],[14] all appear to be evidence this is not a hoax. I'm half suspecting that Epic Crusader is actually a front by Jono2013/the IPs to try and make it look like other users are meatpuppeting as well, but I digress. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We do not have separate wikipedia articles on every patent. Then why Energetically modified cement? It is nothing more than a tweak. We cannot afford separate articles for every tweaks. Epic Crusader (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was refuting your statement that it is a hoax. Your comment there also refutes that it is a hoax. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Epic Crusader is a new user who has made a handful of posts over the past 3 days, all related to getting various articles speedily deleted. Just an observation. Drpickem (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentYou are not counting the hundreds of hours of work I have done on wikipedia as an IP editor over the last 6 yrs from 2007 on chemistry related topics on my expertise. You may not believe me, but it is true. Epic Crusader (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hej! I'm a Swede and saw this "debate". I live in Stockholm and have no connection with LTU. My alma mater is a very prestigious Swedish University, KTH (I would say the best overall, but I'm going to be a little proud!). I want to offer my "services" as an expert in this subject. I do not know the Company or Professor Ronin, but I am well aware of EMC for about 15 years. I met Lennart Elfgren some years back and he is at the top of the tree. Really at the top of his tree. I cannot believe that his name would be mixed with anything other than the highest caliber intellectual subjects. And look at all the papers with his name on them!

In Sweden we say "Lagom" to mean "not too much and not too little". In my opinion too much has been said being negative about this subject without any expertise. I want to vote but I do not want to get snapped on. I want to add expertise to the debate. If anyone thinks I cannot participate because I'm Swedish please say. I can give some good insights which I think will help close the debate as this is a very real subject and notable. No doubt. It's about the only "green" cement technology out there that has produced substantial real results.

The most important comment made here was above when the user made the distinction between "grinding" and "surface activation". Although EMC may be produced by "grinding", only EMC grinding is producing the surface activation whish is common to all EMC.

Anyone can replace portland cementy with fly ash. The most important think is how far can one go before one looses the needed strength developments blah blah? Even if one can do that, what is one adding to the mix to "cheat"? Because the "cheats" can make it very expensive. But I don't see any "cheating here" other than the odd squirt of plasticiser (which one would use anyway). This was always a subject of enormous potential, and that was back in the late 1990s. From what I have read, the project results are extraordinary. I mean: 8000+ psi at 50% replacement? At 25KWh per tonne? One can see why it is such a threat to OPC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swedish Gold (talk 18:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are always welcome to give your "services" as an expert on a subject. But do remember you are not the only expert here on material science. Wikipedia is not the place to judge "how far can one go with portland cement before one looses the needed strength developments". There are plenty of peer reviewed journals out there to discuss it. Energetically modified cement has not got any serious academic praise (which I can assure you being a professor of Chemistry in University of California, Berkeley. Epic Crusader (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back to Epic Crusader. Then you will know of one professor in the Chemistry department at Berkeley who is a fly ash expert? I know him but do not want to name names and therefore either you are him (which I strongly doubt), and therefore you should declare that you are competing academic, or you should be careful about making comments that you cannot support. Or you may find I contact the professor at Berkeley that I do know and I am sure he will be interested to know that one of his colleagues is making such serious allegations against another university, which you imply are a collective 20 year academic "hoax" by leading authorities. Not that I am going to even give credit you are who you say you are, because it is unheard of that academics would attack an entire universities good standing in a thread such as this. Therefore do not take this as making I am attacking Berkeley. If you knew this subject, you would know Elgren. Swedish Gold (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I am in Berkeley I am a chemistry professor but when I am in wikipedia I am a wikipedian like every other. You are wholly stretching my statement. Energetically modified cement is a tweak and that is all. We cannot have wikipedia entries on countless tweaks. And do not stretch this matter to our institutions. Energetically modified cement is still not accepted by significant mainstream academics (there will be always some experts who will accept them). That is all. Epic Crusader (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back to Epic Crusader: This is not right. You made a very serious word "hoax" and you told off others who tried to convince you otherwise. You pledged your credentials as your basis. Look above. Now you say "tweak". I have written to Professor Ronin and Elfgren at LTU to let them know a Professor at Berkeley is raising suggestion that they with others have collectively pulled off a "hoax" over something which is nothing more than a "tweak". I will not write to the Professor at Berkeley that I do know as a fly ash expert, because it is not in his manner to be so imprecise or lack of etiquette. He's a very nice fellow. I do not believe you are him. In fact,I don't believe you have any connection to Berkeley at all. But could you please give info as to your mainstream "academics", because Elfgren is surely one of them and so is Campbell Middleton of Cambridge. When it comes to EMC, Ronin is the authority. So who are you referring to? Are you saying Elgren and Middleton are not "mainstream"? Swedish Gold (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are making legal threats to me and that is sufficient to ban you from wikipedia. I said "hoax" but I have changed my mind to "tweak". Past is past. Whatever you want to do, you can. I want to improve coverage of wikipedia on chemistry topics and I will do that. And I stick to my position that Energetically modified cement is not suitable for wikipedia. Epic Crusader (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also have doubts you are indeed a professor at UCB. I'm in Berkeley so if you'd want, we could talk in person about this but I doubt you'd have time for that if you really are a professor. Also, Swedish Gold made no legal threats. Please do not rush to accuse others of making such threats. Transcendence (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2013 (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.

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. Tone 08:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lillian Wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Company that she works for Felice News has been deleted per AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felice News. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yeah, I can't find anything on her anywhere relevant. No news, books, not even blogs. Silverseren^C 22:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I literally can't find any sources or mentions apart from WP mirrors.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable third party sources, as required by WP:GNG. Editor of articles starting with L (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2013 (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.

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. Tone 08:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul Sisters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete Non-released documentary without any indication of notability at all. Collect (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I could only find this source after doing a long search. Which is sad, because it seems like it would have been a good documentary. Silverseren^C 22:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete as being TOO SOON without prejudice for undeletion or recreation once it gets released and gets more press. I think it reasonable that it be at least mentioned in the articles on directors Max Jones and Lillian Wu until that time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:48, 13 May 2013 (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.

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. Tone 08:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music For America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Defunct(?) organization that does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Article flagged six years ago for a lack of reliable secondary sources, but it looks like no improvement has been made during this time. I had a hard time finding considerable coverage of this organization myself. Breadblade (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Oh man, Howard Dean. That was a little trip down nostalgia lane. Anyway, this group didn't do anything notable. Shii (tock) 23:47, 12 May 2013 (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.

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. LFaraone 15:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Sirianni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article subject fails WP:MUSICBIO Hekerui (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - article subject fails for music and theatre, researched both, was married to a former regular on Howard Stern which is how all the promotions seem to be focused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.54.72 (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC) — 68.173.54.72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete- nothing on any charts, self produced, band no longer around, artist on her own has no albums and seems to perform very ovcassionally in restaurants on long island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.17 (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be famous for being wife of a former regular on the howard stern show. actor and singer, but not meeting wikipedia standards for notability for either. she did act as his manager per some articles, but not sure that makes her notable. it seems like the original wikipedia entry was made by her or someone promoting her as it copied her website exactly. google search just yields the same text over and over. perhaps fold this in to her ex husband's page? jackie marling from the howard stern show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.245.95 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC) — 69.204.245.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Delete- meets no notability standards I can find in various categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.48 (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was actually going to nominate this article awhile ago but never got around to it. Nancy isn't notable for her music career (not up to par with WP:MUSBIO), only notable for being married (now divorced) to Jackie Martling. Notability isn't inherited WP:INHERITED.-LM2000 (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2013 (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.

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. Only a few editors expressed guideline based arguments but after being relisted twice there was no clear outcome Mkdw^talk 22:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seriously struggling to see the notability of this actress. She appears to fail WP:GNG. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: This article should not be deleted. this actress has done good no. of roles and is quite popular in Indian TV industry. deleting articles like this will be loss to wikipedia where we generally find info about various persons. u may put notice for improving the article and adding reliable sources, but do not delete it. u may not knowing the actress,but as resident of india i know the actress, she can be seen daily on tv. if u google for her,u may find information about here. SO DO NOT DELETE because every article can not be well written. this is my suggestion. Have added number of reliable references to article.Arja36 (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. She's new to her profession and has done nothing to make herself stand out from the millions of other hopefuls, as evidenced by the lack of reliable sources. Fails WP:Notability (people). MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep - Multiple Times of India cites in the footnotes do indicate that this is a public figure worthy of encyclopedic biography. Most of the internet material I am seeing is blog related, fan club stuff, etc., but this does seem to be one who does indeed actually "stand out from the millions of other hopefuls," to borrow a phrase. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete -Not notable person. she just started career in films.

• KEEP: she is a notable actress — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.8.49 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2013 (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.

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. Tone 08:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Motherfucking Browns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No external references provided of any form, does not demonstrably meet any WP:MUSIC notability criteria. - Vianello (Talk) 16:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reason given by Vianello — Gmt2001 (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If this succeeds the following must be undone: Browns (disambiguation) 554651478 & The Browns 554651339 — Gmt2001 (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reason because of the inappropriate title and name, profane language is not allowed on Wikipedia, it disgusts me, why this wasn't already deleted. PBASH607 (The One Day Apocalypse) (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although I agree (obviously enough) with deletion, appropriate articles (though I contend this one is not appropriate) are not inherently barred from containing obscene language. WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Nowhere is profane language disallowed on Wikipedia as long as it is appropriately encyclopedic. - Vianello (Talk) 19:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter because it's no longer shocking; http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/jun/16/popandrock.alexispetridis Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per User:PBASH607, Inappropriate title. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. INeverCry 20:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (no relation) due to inability to find sufficient significant coverage that isn't social media. Fails WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Fails WP:BAND criteria. It's weird how many people (here and at the help desk, probably elsewhere too) think WP is subject to profanity censorship.--Drasil (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2013 (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.

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 deletion. - Vianello (Talk) 01:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Bitter End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only external note given to the article's subject is in the form of two reviews, one of which I cannot get to load at all and the other of which is a solitary website blurb. - Vianello (Talk) 16:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I declined the WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion nomination, recommending that this article go to AFD, on the grounds that (a) there is a possibility of meeting WP:BAND criterion #5, having released two albums from independent labels, although it remains to be seen whether those labels are notable; and (b) there was a weak claim of notability in that one of the band's songs was featured in a notable video game, which disqualified the article from A7 deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I should have thought to mention that. Your input is appreciated! - Vianello (Talk) 00:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Their second album was released on Uprising Records, which does seem marginally notable, and the album was professionally reviewed at Allmusic[15]. That site also has a short biography[16], but apart from those and a review at Ultimate Guitar[17] (which may be user submitted), I can't really find any coverage in reliable sources that indicates meeting the criteria for inclusion set out at WP:BAND. If any more sources come to light then I might reconsider, but for now I think these guys fall just short of the bar. — sparklism ^hey! 13:29, 14 May 2013 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violin Concerto No. 4 (Paganini) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An article about about a somewhat-notable concerto that still reeks of original research after being tagged for 2 months. The tone of the article doesn't feel really encyclopedic either. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 16:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The issue here is notability rather than whether an article in its current state could be improved by editing. In the case of this piece of music by a notable composer, it is a clearly suitable subject for an encyclopaedia. AllyD (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above (and per nom, who himself states that it is somewhat-notable). OR and tone can be changed by editing (WP:ATD). Ansh666 02:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major work by a major composer. Numerous recorded performances by notable musicians. Synopsis of first movement appears to need re-writting, or perhaps trimmend if sources can not be found. Article meets none of the criteria of WP:DEL-REASON. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Notable work by a notable composer, published by major publishers, performed by notable performers. Article issues are not a reason to delete; trout for the nominator. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2013 (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.

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 Withdrawn by nominator, merge was editorial decision and subject to usual editorial processes. This was originally closed as "The result was Redirect to Wikipedian in Residence: without objection from the page creator and deletion nominator. Don't see a need use AFD here if we're all agreed that a redirect is sufficient. --MZMcBride (talk) 8:25 pm, 12 May 2013, last Sunday (1 day ago) (UTC+1)" by the nominator as an WP:NAC. This was then listed at DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_May_13. Clearly it was incorrect to close this as a redirect as there is no consensus for that but its also perfectly clear that the nominator meant to withdraw the AFD and that the merge was an editorial decision without the force of an AFD discussion behind it. That does seem the right outcome so I'm reclosing on that basis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic McDevitt-Parks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No assertion of notability. The article does a reasonable job of demonstrating that McDevitt-Parks exists. It does almost nothing to establish why he should have an article here. MZMcBride (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Wikipedian in Residence - The information contained in this article is valid, encyclopedic information that would greatly benefit the Wikipedian in Residence article, which should be expanded to list the known Wikipedians in Residence and some information about each. McDevitt-Parks is one of the most notable Wikipedians in Residence to date and should be covered on that article. Neelix (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Relevant information is already in the Wikipedian in Residence article. Peter James (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Wikipedian in Residence as stipulated above. Harej (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2013 (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.

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. J04n(talk page) 00:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Mewawalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Overpromotional article. Created by WP:SPA user:Jimbollins, with deletion tag removed by user:Ashleyt42. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable personJussychoulex (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; do not delete as subject is a public civic figure and the article serves as helpful biographical information. Should not be deleted as is per relevant guidelines for the sections under candidates and nominees and award recipients" Ashleyt42 (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC) — Ashleyt42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - Subject is clearly a notable public figure serving the Mayor of San Francisco and has also held notable other positions.Ashleyt42 (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Article does not seem to cite secondary sources that are clearly independent of the subject. I see company's pages and the user's profiles on various sites. I don't see stories from, say, CNN, the Wall Street Journal, or the Chronicle. For an article that's not even a day old, I'm refraining from judgment. —C.Fred (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Additional secondary and tertiary sources have been added to the article to resolve earlier comment.Jimbollins (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I reviewed the two sources Jimbollins added: one mentions Mewawalla only in passing (one sentence at the bottom of the article), and the other does not mention him at all. Then I did a Google search. I found his Facebook and LinkedIn profiles but no coverage of him in reliable sources. Accordingly, he does not appear to meet the general notability guideline and should not have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - given additional sources. See details of sources and information available - reliable sources include FuseCorps, the Whitehouse, Mayor of SF site, Stanford, Shareable, Juniper Research, Company websites. More sources can also be added. Following the general notability guideline with focus on guidelines for public figures given subject and his roles with Mayor of City and County of San Francisco, California and his involvement with other national efforts.Jimbollins (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC) — Jimbollins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. *Comment - Suggest keeping this article under general notability guidelines given subject's notable coverage across public sector (San Francisco Mayor, White House forum) and Fortune 500 (Nokia, NBC Universal, GE, etc) sources. Quick research resulted in SF Mayor coverage in Sharable magazine, Whitehouse coverage on FuseCorps, and subject receiving 2012 gold award from Juniper Research "for significant contribution to their sector."FredMalone (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC) — FredMalone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources showing anything near meeting WP:GNG or WP:42. Mdann52 (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have tried a google news search and a traditional google search. Unable to locate anything more than passing mentions. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Looked at the sources mentioned above and others and found notable coverage under WP:42 and WP:GNG including Mayor of San Francisco, White House coverage, Gold Award from Juniper, and more coverage with General Electric Company, Nokia, NBC news, Yahoo etc. Also, reviewing the comments from other contributors, it seems that this article should be kept given Wikipedia:Guidelines for Administrators #1.4 ^[4] - suggest keeping the article at this time given the overall discussion on this articleJessHiggins (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC) — JessHiggins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.

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. Tone 08:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poznámka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a slovak translation of verses from the Koran (?). Does not appear to fit into any of the CSD criteria, strictly construed. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'd say WP:SNOW, Google translate seems to indicate this are religious verses, and the title apparently means 'remark' in Slovak so I can't even recommend a viable redirect. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deletion per A1 and A7 of WP:ACSD. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2013 (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.

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 redirect to Private housing estates in Sha Tin District#Lucky Plaza. J04n(talk page) 19:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Plaza, Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Does not seem notable. No reliable sources, little content. Adrian Dakota (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reserved. I previously created this article because Lucky Plaza is one of the largest and famous private housing estates in Sha Tin Town Centre in Hong Kong. It is notable. Also, I found that people usually asked for article deletion because in fact they do not know what the article describes only. I objected this subjective thinking. Ricky@36 (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking in depth coverage reliable sources. Editor of articles starting with L (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Private housing estates in Sha Tin District#Lucky Plaza. I don't believe individual housing estates warrant separate articles unless they meet WP:GNG, which this one appears not to have. The sources on the page document that the place WP:EXISTS, not that it is in anyway notable. The only additional information that the page provides is a list of bus routes running to and from the estate. Housing estates are quite common in Hong Kong, so having an article for each one may violate WP:NOTDIR. Funny ^Pika! 04:11, 21 May 2013 (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.

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. J04n(talk page) 19:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sota Fujimori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find video game sources: "Sota Fujimori" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Prod contested by creator. Non-notable and fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 09:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Expand from what I see on the japanese version of the article this composer was more active than what was written in the English version (I also just realized that I know at least two of the songs from there without ever having played the games). The English article would need to be expanded by someone who knows more about this topic Gmkeros (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - An article on this topic was already userfied in the past when a large number of BEMANI musicians were AfD'd in 2010. For the original version (which is longer and more detailed but wasn't deemed to pass GNG) see here. If this article is kept and expanded, I'd recommend using the userfied version as a base. -Thibbs (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. Not seeing any reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability or justify a biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gnews and Gbooks on both variations of his name come back with 0 usable hits. Fails WP:GNG Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Note: Creator has talked to me on my talk page here. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Note: Mine too, here. My !vote remains the same, except for the note that all the mark up is slowing down the page loading considerably, with nothing done to address the notability situation. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2013 (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.

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. Tone 08:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Khazaniuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Khazaniuk does not pass the tennis notability guidelines. She has not been ranked in the top-200 in either singles or doubles, she is/has not been a top-3 junior player, she has no senior Grand Slam, Fed Cup, or WTA main draw appearances, and she has only ever won $10,000 ITF tournaments (none $50,000 or higher). Jared Preston (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above and fails WP:GNG.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2013 (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.

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. Tone 08:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Maejor (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

refs are falsified. The one attributed to Huffington post is actually a tumbler posting. The copyvio text is about albinism, not about subject. The ref on need for speed does not even mention him. fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR, not to mention it is very promotional Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a G12 copyvio of this link. Even without that, the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, assuming copyright issues are over. No reliable sources. smtchahal^(talk) 09:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2013 (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.

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. LFaraone 15:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All or Nothing (Glee Cast song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails all WP:NSONG criteria: the song's sole claim to fame is that it was an original song that recently aired on the television show Glee, which does almost exclusively covers. Unlike such original songs in past seasons, it did not chart and has not been widely reviewed in any depth. It is not notable. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it, too, is not notable and fails WP:NSONG for the same reason as "All or Nothing":

• Outcast (Glee Cast song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The song has probably been heard by everyone who watched that episode of Glee, so it's obviously been heard pretty widely. Still, from the perspective of WP:NSONG, that in and of itself isn't enough for notability. The song hasn't charted independently, and most reviews of the song are also reviews of the episode. I would include a mention of the original song on the page for the episode if it itself is notable, and delete this article. Chri$topher 13:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the episode in which it was originally aired. Failing that, Delete. Not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per my nomination. I don't see what redirects buy you; the episode articles barely mention the songs as it is. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2013 (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.

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. Tone 08:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ASD Learning Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Private, for-profit, special needs school. Searches provide no sources to support notability per WP:ORG, hence the article is little more than a directory entry , and thus promotional. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORP. No significant coverage in secondary sources. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non notable. Lacks enough reliable sources covering the subject. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 05:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No third-party reliable sources given. Would have !voted to keep if it was a "normal" school or a non-profit organisation. smtchahal^(talk) 06:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable 3rd party sources located; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - Fails WP:CORP & WP:RS. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:52, 12 May 2013 (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.