Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Segregation in concrete


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Segregation in concrete

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article represents a too-technical viewpoint on one physical aspect of concrete. If not deleted, some sort of merge is definitely in order. C(u)w(t)C(c) 23:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - the topic has received significant coverage and analysis in reliable book and journal sources:
 * Civil Engineering Materials
 * Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete and Concrete, Issue 169
 * Utilizing Ready Mix Concrete and Mortar
 * ISBN 0870311670
 * Here's another source, a Master's thesis:
 * Optimizing Portland Cement Concrete Mix Design to Environmental and Construction Variables with the Aid of Computer Design Software
 * Matters regarding the technical writing within the article are better dealt with by copy editing, rather than outright removal from the encyclopedia, per Wikipedia's editing policy, section WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Also, the Concrete article is quite long, and this is a reasonable content fork. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is not too technical - the concept is quite basic. And even if the topic was technically difficult, deletion would not be appropriate. Warden (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Creator of article: Segregation is a fundamental behaviour as far as concrete goes, Wikipedia should cover engineering too. Wikipedia doesn't have articles on subjects as fundamental as vibrators or mortar, (we have mortar as used in brick masonry, but we need one more general). Perhaps if we had Continue, come up with specific issues, I would happily make the article more descriptive. I have added footnotes for terms which I felt would be uncomfortable to some. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:TECHNICAL is not a reason to delete. Article is 2 days old. Give it a chance. Sheesh. --Kvng (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Northamerica1000.  →TSU T* 17:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.