Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energetically modified cement (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]

AfDs for this article:
Energetically modified cement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · 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 PS - I have been informed, much to my surprise, by user:Jono2013 that I have apparently withdrawn the nomination for deletion.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NO THE ARTICLE WAS WITHDRAWN FOR DELETION BY ANOTHER USER THAT PROPOSED IT OVER 7 DAYS AGO.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)

  • NOT ONLY WAS IT WITHDRAWN BUT I HAVE SINCE BEEN AWARDED A BARNSTAR FOR IT.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]
  • 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. SilverserenC 22:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and Jono, please just calm down. All caps has never helped anyone in a discussion. SilverserenC 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:
— 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]


  • 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]
  • Speedy Keep (I agree with person above who already nominated it for speedy keep). This AfD is a waste of time and should never have been initiated let alone in circumstances where given the first one was withdrawn. Which worries me about the motivations of the nominators. It seems to me this is cyberbullying.
Comment Im from Sweden and live in Stockholm. I am VERY proud of this as a Swede. This is a superb article. I did make come changes to the article when it was on the Portland cement pages, but since then, Ive had no input. In fact,came back to see how the work had developed and then discovered it had a new page. I was then completely shocked to see how things had developed. Completely shocked by the aggravation towards the page and the user Jono2013. We dont do things like that in Sweden.
The comment by Xxanthippe is irrelevant and should be seen in the context of the comment I will make later. By that same logic, Wikipedia would have no entry for a whole bunch of drugs. I remind everyone, this thread is about SPAM. Keep the argument focused. I am not surprised Jono2013 felt attacked. Certain users here have taken allegations of "SPAM" (which were not substantiated) and let them broaden into a wider issues. Did anyone read the warning in the collapsed section above? Jono2013 is a NEW USER. He has been baited.
  • Second thing: Let me remind everyone: Wikipedia is losing quality editors. Fact. We need editors - and even rarer expert ones. The most common sense comment made above was made by "Jewishprincess":
"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."
(See above) I completely agree with her. We should be thanking Jono2013. The User Northamerica1000 should be congratulated for awarding Jono2013. But, it seems Jono2013 came to Wikipedia in good faith and a certain few have behaved very badly. Lukeno94: Enough already. If you investigate the first AfD the COI was resolved. AfD are not here to re-litigate. You also have the email sent from Professor Ronin to the Wikipedia administrators (see collapsed section). Enough damage has been risked by these thread to the professor's reputation. I will make a comment about infiltration below, separately after I have done come research based on Jono2013's comments above about the European Court of Justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 10:10, 17 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]

  • 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. ([2]) 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 [3], 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 [4],[5],[6],[7] 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 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energetically_modified_cement_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1179990358"