Talk:Segregation in concrete

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Segregation in concrete article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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.
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Please suggest changes solicited

I have gone through all the tags viz.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]