Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuburg siliceous earth


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge. There is clear consensus here that a standalone article isn't appropriate, and that this should be merged into a broader topic. There's less clear consensus on what that should be: Draft:Siliceous earth is a reasonable possibility; Draft:Wellheim Formation is another. I will leave that decision to other discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Neuburg siliceous earth

 * – ( View AfD View log )

How is this meaningfully different from diatomaceous earth? It should not have its own article.

No independent source has been shown to support any such assumption. Göske, 2008 and Göske & Kachler, 2008 try to establish the material's uniqueness, but the first is an expertise paid for by the producing company and in the second Göske can not be assumed to be an independent author.

A paragraph in the article Diatomaceous earth might be considered appropriate, but only if it can be shown (by an independent source) that this substance is meaningfully different or special, as a statement like "The producer claims..." would be of dubious value.

By the way, I tried to get an answer to my leading question from mineralogy experts listed on the English and German project pages but sadly found no one who cared to look into this. ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Elsner, 2016 has the following relevant quotes:

Note that Elsner cites no sources for these statements.

I accept the fact that the material contains less than 95% SiO2. But I still doubt the assumption that this alone makes it sufficently special and meaningfully different from other similar materials.

Please also note that the International Mineralogical Association does not recognize it as a mineral in its own right (source in article). I'd love to hear an opinion from someone with experience in mineralogy. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like you to note that most of the sources used in the article have some connection to Hoffmann GmbH. Five of the linked sources are linked from their servers. At least five have been written by self-identifying Hoffmann employees, or were official co-prodcutions with the company (e.g. Schönrock, 2008).

Two of the article's sources have the term "one of a kind" in their titles to describe the substance. To me this illustrates a certain urgency with which the producer attempted to push for the general notability of his product long before he tried for a Wikipedia page.

As I stated on the article's talk page previously, I think this is all part of a long term publicity campaign for something quite common to make it look special. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I have listed this discussion on the talk page of WikiProject Geology to obtain an expert opinion. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete In the peer-reviewed literature, I cannot find a reliable source that provides any indication that Neuburg siliceous earth (Neuburger Kieselerde) is notable enough to justify its own Wikipedia article. It is the common name of commercial grade siliceous earth that forms only a small part of the Neuburg Kieselerde Member of the Wellheim Formation. The Neuburg Kieselerde Member has been argued to have "the most diverse fossil assemblage of the Danubian Cretaceous Group." Thus, there might be enough notability for a Wikipedia article about the Wellheim Formation in which the current Neuburg siliceous earth article could condensed down to two or three sentences about it uses and omitting the promotional-POV material. A few pertinent papers are:


 * Schneider, S., Jaeger, M., Kroh, A., Mitterer, A., Niebuhr, B., Vodrážka, RadekK, Wilmsen, M., Wood, CJ and Zágoršek, K., 2013. Silicified sea life – Macrofauna and palaeoecology of the Neuburg Kieselerde Member (Cenomanian to Lower Turonian Wellheim Formation, Bavaria, southern Germany). Acta Geologica Polonica, 63(4), pp. 555-610.


 * Wilmsen, M. and Niebuhr, B., 2010. On the age of the Upper Cretaceous transgression between Regensburg and Neuburg an der Donau (Bavaria, southern Germany). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 256, pp.267-278.


 * and
 * Schneider, H., 1966. Silikosegefährdung durch Neuburger Kieselkreide. International Archive for Industrial Pathology and Industrial Hygiene, 22 (4), pp.323-341. Paul H. (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Additional comment The Neuburg siliceous earth is not a type of diatomaceous earth. According to Niebuhr et al. (2013), given above, "...limestones and marly limestones that contained large amounts of biogenic silica (e.g., siliceous opoka; see Pożaryska 1952; Niebuhr et al. 1997) are regarded as the primary, unaltered sediment that was turned into the Neuburg Siliceous Earth during decalcification, and sagging into karst depressions in Cenozoic times." Thus, the Neuburg Siliceous Earth consists not of diatoms. Instead, it consists of silicified limestones. Paul H. (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment there's a draft at Draft:Hoffmann Mineral, and I think maybe between them there's enough for an article? Maybe merge this with that? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

, if you read the discussion on Draft:Hoffmann Mineral's talk page, you will find that no reliable / independent source has yet been presented to demonstrate the company's notability. Btw, will this discussion be archived? I'd like to use it as a reference point for German Wikipedia. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you four your explanation,, and supplying the relevant sources.
 * On en.wiki AfD discussions are normally archived. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to find any mass newspaper digitisation projects of German language materials, since that's where I'd expect to find coverage in .nz. Are there literally no such collections? or am I missing something? Stuartyeates (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Neuburg Siliceous Earth is indeed a raw material worth mentioning that´s already mined by the ancient Romans. It´s used worldwide in the elastomer sector and in the paint and varnish industry. I refer to an old delete discussion in which the article was called justified. Only a part about Hoffmann Mineral was inserted. This suggestion came from the deletion discussion of the Hoffmann Mineral article.Draft:Hoffmann Mineral--NinaSeitle (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The "Zefys" service offered by Berlin State Library appears to have exactly what you're looking for, albeit also behind a paywall. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I found this collection of online newspaper archives by Uni Bamberg. Note that they all appear to have a paywall; the university library offers an access package if you subscribe to their service.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The nomination asks "How is this meaningfully different from diatomaceous earth?". Industrial Inorganic Chemistry explains that "The kieselguhrs should not be confused with silcaeous earth...".  So, as this material is distinctly different and industrially important, there is no case for deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

So the next logical step would be to ask "How is this meaningfully different from siliceous earth?". Please note that our mineralogy expert still voted delete since his answer to that next question was (in short) "It is not." To sum up my main concern once more: I'm afraid that Neuburger Kieselerde is just a brand name, blown up for marketing purposes, which always brings a danger of misrepresenting the facts and misleading the reader. At this point I'd prefer to keep the neutral and informative parts of this article as part of a proposed new article siliceous earth which would have a higher priority anyway than this (claimed) special instance of it. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment is absolutely correct. My original question has been answered by  above: It is not diatomaceous earth at all, but a kind of siliceous earth (located in the Wellheim formation).
 * I agree that incorporating "...the neutral and informative parts of this article..." into a newer article about either siliceous earths or the Wellheim Formation would be a proper course of action. The Wellheim Formation is also significant for the fossils that it contains and being significant evidence for a Cretaceous shallow sea that once covered most of Germany. Paul H. (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Neuburg Siliceous Earth is not a registered brand name. It is a unique raw material that only occurs in the Neuburg area and its surroundings. It was created 95 million years ago when parts of southern Germany were covered by the sea. After the sea receded, layers of limestone were formed by collapses into which the siliceous earth sank and was preserved. The report about the Wellheim Formation also reports about the Neuburg Siliceous Earth. It was even co-authored by an employee of Hoffmann Mineral. I am still of the opinion that the article has its right to exist here because it is about the raw material and not about the geological aspect.--NinaSeitle (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: NinaSeitle (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.

Anyway, contrary to your statement and according to the official German trademark registry, your company has indeed registered it as a trademark. I marked your last post with COI editor, since you self-declared as having a conflict of interest about the subject on your user page, being an employee of Hoffmann Mineral GmbH, the article subject's sole producer. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC) I have asked for help with creating the article Siliceous earth, which will incorporate this article's relevant information about the Neuburg deposit. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC) I just created Draft:Siliceous earth. Please help, everyone, so it isn't only and me. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC) I have created the rough article structure for the draft (and even reserved a subsection for the Neuburg deposit). Now it needs to be filled with mineralogical content by knowledgeable users. Please help me there, I'm no mineralogy expert, as I've said before. I will also try to get help with the draft from the Geology portal. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I never said anything about it being a registered brand name or not,.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC) I transferred some mineralogical content, as well as some commercial info, from the Neuburg article (this debate's topic) to the equivalent section in the draft. I'd like to ask anyone knowledgeable, again, to help with expanding the draft so it can become an article. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment We have already a little bit to show on Draft:Siliceous earth now, I think.

I hadn't expected that. What are your thoughts, of it not being a scientifical term, and what that means for this article and the draft we are working on? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment After translating most of de:Kieselerde and adding it to the draft, I want to inform you of what it says. I.e. that siliceous earth is a historical term that is nowadays diffuse and not much in use, scientifically.
 * Merge I think it should be merged with Draft:Siliceous earth, and given its own section on that page. Thus we cover the Neuburg variety, but don't make it seem more important than it is. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment please note this related inquiry I started on WP:RSN, I'll quote a possibly important observation from there:


 * I'm also waiting for replies from several federal institutions about the safety of oral ingestion. I also asked them to please explain the definition of siliceous earth they used in their published evaluations, as this area is still unclear to me.


 * At the moment for the lead, I'd tend to go with
 * What do you think? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The new draft has already received some tender geologist care from Kevmin and Hemiauchenia to flesh out the structure I put there. I especially like the infobox that puts it into a proper geological context. Please assist with the current draft if you feel you can help improve it. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Update In my opinion, the ongoing debate about this matter at WikiProject Geology is meandering towards including informative content from here into an article on the Wellheim Formation to avoid WP:PROMO. So I created Draft:Wellheim Formation and transferred most of the content here.


 * 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.