Talk:Segregation in concrete

Contested deletion

This article deserves to stay because it is about a very important tendency of concrete that is segregation, it is well referenced and if it appeared out of context it was so because it is work in progress and will not look now as internal links are added.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I am pasting the relevant clause under which deletion is sought: A1. No context. Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." This applies only to very short articles. Context is different from content, treated in A3, below. Caution is needed when using this tag on newly created articles. {{db-a1}}, {{db-nocontext}}, {{db-short}} If you are able to search for sources, then the article does have enough context. This criteria should only be used when you have no idea what the article is about.
2. Segregation is a notable property of concrete and it should feature on Wikipedia, the article is a baby at the moment, and could grow with addition of text and images - graphs, photographs etc. As evidence of notability I present result of google search the search string used has been "segregation in concrete" with the double quotes in place. Search results 2200, google books search result 1100

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See what links here Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing CSD tag for now, and tagging with maitenence items. A sandbox in your user-space may be a good idea for an article until it meets guidelines. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 20:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please suggest changes solicited

I have gone through all the tags viz.

1. Wikipedia:Please clarify
2. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section
3. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
4. Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable
5. Wikify

I have provided internal link where ever necessary, each line is sourced and the sources are cited in line, the article is a stub, so there is no other section but the lead. I request more specific suggestions than just the tags. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Also have added footnotes. Please have another look at the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes

All of the tags I applied to the article deal with the same issue, the article seems both limited in scope and too technical to be appropriate for the audience of Wikipedia. Maybe some sort of merge with Concrete or a similar article is in order? C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 23:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - Encyclopedias often cover technical topics, and the concrete article is already quite long. This is a reasonable content fork. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Article kept at AfD discussion

The result of the recent AfD discussion for this article was a unanimous keep (except for the nomination to delete). Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You were very helpful. Thanks. Perhaps the editor who finds the article too technical would come up with specific terms that need explanation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)