Talk:Neuburg siliceous earth

De-prodded
I don't usually remove prods, but in this case I think the tag is not justified. There's a certain number of studies that deal with the substance and a few more for the German term "Neuburger Kieselerde"  (although that is starting to become conflated with the geology of the stratum of the same name). Authorship seems fairly international and is not restricted to people that have (declared) connections to Hoffmann. Current sourcing of the article is of course wholly inappropriate, but the material for better treatement exists. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is probably notable, but I am concerned it was written as an advert for the company that sells this... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You were quite right with that suspicion,, in my opinion. But I have just explained to one of their employees on Draft talk: Hoffmann Mineral that companies cannot inherit notability from their products.


 * However one the results of looking at all the sources they added is that this resource deposit should be notable enough on its own: It is a subject of Elsner, 2016, which is a study on German silica resources by a Federal German Institute ("Deutsche Rohstoffagentur") that stresses its uniqueness and importance for several German industries.


 * By the way, please help me in deciding which of the other sources to keep: While doing nothing for establishing the company's notability (as they are not independent enough, and partly written by Hoffmann employees), the business magazine articles can be used to illustrate current industry use of the resource.


 * I'm not sure about the Z-Media article: I'd like to throw it out, as it looks like vanity publishing to me, but I'm not sure if that's the proper procedure.


 * I'm also unsure about the kid's feature in the Augsburger Allgemeine article.
 * We could use the Sonax article for the history of mining Neuburg siliceous earth, but then have to keep in mind that Sonax Gmbh is a subsidiary of Hoffmann Unternehmsgruppe: the source is far from independent. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, I think the resource is notable, it is just that this article needs to be edited for tone/promotional language. As for references, I think all can be kept, even if not all of them are ver reliable, although the lesser reliable are should be attributed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Article draft for Hoffmann Mineral GmbH, the company exploiting this resource deposit
I wanted to make you aware of the current discussion on Draft talk:Hoffmann Mineral and also invite you to participate. I tried to help a lady working for that company who tries to get an article of the company re-published. In the course of researching sources, I found some useful material to support this article subject's notability. If no one else does, I will add those sources myself. If the Hoffmann Mineral draft keeps failing to become an article of its own (because of notability) some of its well-sourced material should become a paragraph or section in this article, I think. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I mainly meant this source:

and these (German) text passages in particular: Wesentlich weniger als 95 % SiO 2 enthält ein nur in einer Region in Deutschland vorkommender Quarzrohstoff, die Kieselerde bzw. „Neuburger Kieselerde“. Da diese sehr hochwertig ist und nur als Industriemineral Verwendung findet, soll auch sie im Folgenden beschrieben werden. Ein ganz besonderes Industriemineral stellt auch Kieselerde dar. Dieser Rohstoff kommt in Deutschland nur im Raum Neuburg an der Donau vor und wird deswegen auch als „Neuburger Kieselerde“ oder "Neuburger Kieselweiß" bezeichnet. [...] Rund die Hälfte der Produktion wird exportiert. I put this material here for later use in the article, by me or someone else. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Translation of the Elsner quotes:

--ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Transfer of sources from Draft:Hoffmann Mineral
I just transferred all of the sources from Draft:Hoffmann Mineral to this article. Mainly to salvage them, as it currently looks as if that draft won't become an article, but a section of this article. I did some work on these sources so we have a set of well-linked and formatted citations here.

I expect one or two of them will perhaps not find a use in this article (they should be deleted eventually, when found useless), but I also think that most of them will be useful, because of the intrinsic connection of the two subjects: Neuburg Siliceous Earth is the only siliceous earth deposit in Germany, and Hoffmann Mineral GmbH is the only German company mining it (as of 2021).

I promise to work on integrating the sources I added into this article, within the coming weeks, but also ask for your help in doing so. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I think we can redirect Hoffmann Mineral, the company may not be notable on its own but it deserves a (passing) mention here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Article title - does siliceous earth have to be capitalized?
Having looked at the sources a little bit, I note that every English language article about this resource does use capital letters for Neuburg siliceous earth. But then again, every English article that we have was written by employees of Hoffmann Mineral GmbH. I think that they were following company policy, and that Mr Hoffmann tries to establish his main product as an international brand name.

I don't know the current rules & guidelines about title capitalization (gonna have a look later on), but hope that there is a road not to follow that. I would argue by simple linguistics and logic: It is "Kieselerde" in German, where it is capitalized only because all substantives are. If we were to change only that German capitalization rule, we would write Neuburger kieselerde, on the grounds that it is not a proper name (German: "Eigenname"), but just a regular substantive. I hope it's possible to understand the line of my arguing here.

In short: If you can't tell me a good reason for capitalization, I am voting for changing the current article title and using regular, small letters for "siliceous earth". --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to cite the use of Neuburg siliceous earth in this very article to support my case: We currently have 16 occurences, of these only 2 are all capitalized: One in the first sentence and one in the top image caption. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I just found the appropriate rule, in bold, on top of WP:CAPITALIZATION: Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Moved. Pretty much a technical move by editor. Kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 04:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Neuburg Siliceous Earth → Neuburg siliceous earth – Despite past attempts of the only company producing this resource to establish its English name as a capitalized brand name, it cannot be shown that it does indeed have a proper name. Instead it is a special case of siliceous earth that is only found at a single location: Siliceous earth from Neuburg => Neuburg siliceous earth.) ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I concur. Plus it is probably a Germanization, given that in German most nouns are capitalized (IIRC). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Planned changes
I would not name Hoffmann Mineral in the intro part, as that should be as concise as possible and the article is about the resource, not the company. This info should go to sections "History" and "Mining".

I would start the article proper with a "History" section, about historical uses and the development of its industrial exploitation.

I feel we have enough material (especially Elsner, 2016; see translations above) to prove the uniqueness of the resource in Germany on one hand and for the German industry on the other hand. Both should be expressed in respective sections. In the current structure that would be "Geology" and "Uses".

Please give your opinions and/or help me with my proposed changes. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your recent work on the article and . --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Neuburg siliceous earth at all, it's just a brand name
It may be that all the material we have 'proving' and promoting the uniqueness of Neuburg siliceous earth is just Hoffmann Mineral GmbH telling a clever marketing ploy to the world at large (and perhaps themselves, too).

I just tried to solicit an expert opinion from WP:Rocks and their first reaction was "The article on the material is Diatomaceous earth. The article in question appears to be simply a promotional bit." I'm still trying to get a bit more in-depth reasoning from there, but if this line of expertise holds than we are done with this article, here. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm really asking myself, what about Elsner, 2016 (see translation above) then: How did an official study about German silica resources by a Federal German institute come to enthusiastically point out this material's uniqueness, from a mineralogical point of view? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

New section "Sales"
This 20 July edit (diff) by introduced a new section "Sales" and a text that reads entirely like a PR blurb, especially considering WP:NPOV.

The only reason why I did not immediately delete it without a long explanation is that I'd like to play this fair with regard for what may be inexperience on Mrs Seitle's side.

Let's have a look at the new section:
 * 1st sentence: info already in the article
 * 2nd sentence: info already in the article, also see 3rd sentence
 * everything else starting from the 3rd sentence: This article is about the mineral, not the company: This information is irrelevant to this article.

I will revert the whole edit shortly. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The mention of the company name could probably stand a sentence of content (company size and market locations comes to mind) without being purged with great prejudice, but it's okay either way. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)