Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Geopolymer concrete

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈  04:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Geopolymer concrete


Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale is below (as posted on the draft talk page). On the merits, I make no recommendation as such, except to note that a source published in a peer reviewed journal is not, strictly speaking, self-published or Original Research - though self promotion is a concern, best addressed as a conduct issue. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This article should be deleted because the author has a very clear Conflict of interest as revealed on this talk page post on a not unrelated topic. It is worth noting that several of the references are by the author himself so large parts of the article are self published sources at best or original research at worst. Also note the clear legal threat for anyone altering the related article for which the author is now indef blocked.

Many Thanks 86.153.133.193 (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and probably move to article space. Neither OR nor COI is a valid reason for deletion. OR can be cured by citing it to a reliable source, or removing the united content. In a draft it would be a reason not to approve the draft, but not to delete the page. However, in this case the "original research" appears to be cited to a published peer-reviewed study, which means it isn't OR at all. As to COI, it is a conduct issue, not a content issue. If it is alleged that COI has led to bias or NPOV violations (which has not yet been alleged here), that can be cured by adding additional content to counter the bias, or by removing the biased content, but not by deletion unless all content is so hopelessly biased that no cure is possible, a quite unusual situation. On a quick review, this draft looks ready for mainspace to me. I was hoping to review this more thoroughly, move it to mainspace, and then open this at AfD, but it is here now. DES (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with DES. I would prefer not to move an article to mainspace if there is intent to AFD it, because one of the purposes of review is to screen out articles that are likely to be taken to AFD.  However, in any case, the COI is no reason to delete the draft, and the so-called OR is not OR because it was peer-reviewed.  There is a conduct issue regarding the principal author of the draft, but that applies to the editor, not the draft.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my view it is not currently acceptable as an article, it needs some more work. That's why it's in draft space. No-one has given a reason why it should not exist as a draft. Maproom (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I won't register a formal vote because it's been mentioned to me that it is likely that I have a CoI on this topic (and certainly am in an ongoing dispute with the author of the draft) - but my feeling is that the draft as it stands is mostly (although not entirely) fairly well-written and useful text, but would be more useful and appropriate as a sub-section of Geopolymer (which was mostly written by the same author) rather than as a stand-alone article. Johnprovis (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.