Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-cement

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 no consensus. 1ne 06:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eco-cement

Article reads like an ad, primary author is the creator/seller of product, product is non-notable per WP:Corp#Criteria for products and services, title of article is trade name rather than generic name. Argyriou 00:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Argyriou is confusing me. Previously the deletion header asked for opinions in the discussion page! I have copied my comments here

Eco-cement has had tremendous global publicity (see http://www.tececo.com/media.php) ranking it as one of the most important contributions to combat global warming this millenium. If Argyriou (is this some shortening or hyper word for argue?) wrote "I also don't have any reason to believe that cement with magnesia added is important enough to deserve its own article rather than a section of the articles I listed above; though even if that changed, the article shouldn't be named for one proprietary brand of the stuff" is displaying profound ignorance and is therefore not in a position to judge of what should or should not be included.

The name has been given historic and scientific legitimacy by the many articles written about it (type "Eco-Cement" into google to find hundreds not written by the inventor or associates of the inventor).

Given the enormous level of publicity about eco-cements (over 50k hits a month on the web site and hundreds if not thousands of articles about it - most positive and one or two negative (paid for by the industry - unfortunately the cement industry is behaving a little like the tobacco industry. )

Wikipedia should at the very least say what it is so people can make up their own minds about whether it will in fact result in a giant carbon sink in the built environment. The page I have written gives enough information to enable them to do so. The entry is minimalsist and written totally for lay people. To reduce the level of criticism and claimed commerciality I will try and refer to independent articles about the article if I can get to edit it before it is deleted!

There are also chapters in at least two major book publications giving reference to the cement and I shall also refer to them in the article. The publishers, who are not small companies, would not have asked me to write about the cement unless they at least were aware of the importance of it.

On the matter of other uses of the word Eco-Cement. TecEco have the common law right to the name by the shear volume of numbers. Nobody else is using the name which also happens to be unregisterable as a trade mark other than perhaps the irrelvant use for dog poo cement Argyriou rather flippantly referred to. Could I have their contact details so I can let them know that we believe we legitimately own the common law rights to the name.AubreyJohnWestonHarrison 00:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

and hundreds if not thousands of articles about it - most positive and one or two negative

Mind linking to these articles, then? Preferrably ones from reliable sources. Website hits alone do not make a product notable. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 00:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No reliable sources cited in the article to verify it's claims. Article is written like an advertisement. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 00:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam masquarading as article. Leuko 02:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VSCA, apply directly to the forehead! Danny Lilithborne 02:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm no expert here, but a quick Google bash reveals many apparently reputable independent sources eg The Guardian, New Scientist. The article could do with a rewrite to put the issue in better context and mention related products, (eg see: [1]). Perhaps a rename away from the semi-trademark might emphasise the importance of the general area? Espresso Addict 03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's the best link I've seen about it so far. Almost every other link I've seen was essentially a rehash of Tec-Eco's press releases: popular media articles focusing on the environmental claims. There's been some discussion about this at Talk:Eco-cement already, too. Argyriou 04:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Having read the discussion, I'm formalising my comment as a keep and rename to something like 'ecologically friendly cement'. Espresso Addict 17:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but needs wikifying kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanispamcruftisement. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I feel that those users that are against keeping this article are missing the point somewhat, whilst it needs to be re-written in order to cite sources, and represent a broader, more neutral point of view (and could be renamed with eco-cement as a redirect), the actual subject matter of the article is worth keeping on wikipedia. I suggest that Argyriou more carefully reads the criteria for notability of products and services as I believe that this product passes under criteron one, The technology has appeared in New Scientist, on ABC (Australia)'s New Inventors and http://www.exn.ca/dailyplanet/view.asp?date=4/21/2003 The Discovery Channel Canada] (Mid page). None of these sources are "rehashes" of press releases. Noodle snacks 06:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs an over-haul but a quick database search for peer reviewed scientific literature on the product revealed several hits, eg. Lin, K.L.; Chiang, K.Y.; Lin, C.Y. (June 2005). "Hydration characteristics of waste sludge ash that is reused in eco-cement clinkers". Cement and Concrete Research 35 (6): 1074–1081.  Bobby1011 09:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this article was a copyright violation from [2]. I know this has been noted on the talk page but Copyrighted material cannot be left around unless express permission is granted (ie on the talk page). I dont see that, so even if the author appears the same you cannot assume :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 09:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Leuko --Mecanismo | Talk 10:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep with a re-write. Eco-cements as building materials, at least, are notable. There are other companies who also make eco-cements, for example the Taiheiyo Cement Corporation in Japan [3] and EcoSmart Concrete in Canada [4] and an interesting article (IMHO) could be written about the its advantages and disadvantages. TecEco's Eco-Cement, developed by John Harrison, is written about in Transmaterial: A Catalog of Materials That Redefine Our Physical Environment [5] (published by Princeton University Press), and also Sustainability at the Cutting Edge [6]. The product seems notable. Transmaterial says that it "offers partial solutions for global warming, climate change, waste, and cost-effective mass housing". It could be a subsection of a more general article until good sources for User:AubreyJohnWestonHarrison's information are added. Bláthnaid 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons cited by Espresso Addict. Atlant 12:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Tend towards Delete This is just one of many forms of composite cement based on Portland cement and other constituents. Whilst it is possible that this cement may well lead to a revolution in cement technology, it is currently of far less importance than other composite cements that are used world-wide, for example Portland fly ash cements and Portland blastfurnace cements, that do not have their own articles - and for which there is considerably more peer reviewed scientific literature. Giving this eco-cement its own article gives it far more importance than it is worth, particularly as it is only one specific patented form in the much wider field of magnesium oxide cements. I believe it is sufficient for it to be mentioned within the articles on cement and Portland cement. If it is kept, then it needs wikifying and the vanispamcruftisement deleting. Kpeyn 17:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, rename, and rewrite, needs a wider context. Notable as per above, and for me at least due to its enviromentally-friendly orientation. I revised a bit and added an intro. Karol 18:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be verifiable and notable, though it will need a significant re-write to comply with WP:NPOV. --Scott Wilson 21:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and Wikify and improve. EuroSong ^talk 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and well done to Karol. The capitalisation of eco-cement (vs. Eco-Cement) should be reviewed, peer reviewed literature seems not to capitalise, but it also appears to be a brand name. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & expand or alternately a weak merge with cement—Technically sound. There are variety of formulations of cement—the cement article would benefit from expansion—and this article would benefit from broadening to cover the relatively broad class of more ecologically friendly formulations. Williamborg (Bill) 04:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to what?

There appears to be a consensus forming that the article should be kept, but re-written and expanded to include various "environmentally-friendly" cement formulations besides TecEco's formulations. So what should the article be named? "Eco-cement" is claimed as a trademark by Mr. Harrison and TecEco, at least in Australia, and if the article is to cover similar products, some of which are not named "Eco-cement", it would appear that naming the article "Eco-cement" is not appropriate.

"Environmentally-friendly cement" is POV, and I don't think anyone is claiming fully "sustainable" (in the environmentalist sense) cement, so "sustainable cement" isn't very good, either. "Low-environmental-impact cement" seems accurate, NPOV, broad enough, and shouldn't run into trademark problems, but it also seems clumsy as a title. Any suggestions? Argyriou 21:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Agree most formulations are clumsy. I'd personally be OK with 'eco-friendly cement' or 'ecologically friendly cement' or 'environmentally friendly cement', if the article contextualised the title, but I do take your point there's an element of POV there. Anything encompassing the lower CO2 emissions cf Portland cement would seem to be NPOV. Wrt your suggestion, I think 'low' should perhaps be 'lower' or 'reduced', as they're not objectively low, merely lower than the default material. Espresso Addict 00:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC

• There's no reason why a redirect page couldn't be left in both the names 'eco-cement' and 'Eco-Cement'. Espresso Addict 01:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• As John states, (he did forget to sign his name) I think a list of environmentally friendly cements, linking from the main cement page may be a good idea. Merging all these things in to one article is not the best approach as the information presented on all of these technologies could be expanded upon significantly. Noodle snacks 02:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Plea for Common Sense from John Harrison

[edit] The Brand Name Diffusion Fiasco

Eco-Cement is eco-cement and yes it is a brand name TecEco has used since inception covering a blend of reactive magnesia and another hydraulic cement such as Portland cement and usually a pozzolan.

The point is that Wikipedia exists to provide information about what is important, brand name or not so please stop running this diversionary arguement about it being a brand name and therefore it should be deleted.

[edit] The Capitals Cop Out

The capitals arguement is also irrelevant. TecEco own the brand name in upper and lower case through common law usage (hundreds if not thousands of articles including many important sources as cited) We don't really mind which Wiki contributors use as long as you stick to recording fact not making up fiction.

[edit] Making Eco-Cement Generic

This would really be writing history. Who is it that thinks they have the right?

Several have incorrectly referred to other users of the name as being a reason to make it generic. This would be rewriting fact and not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Closer scrutiny is required. What is happening is that many are trying to rip off the publicity associated with the eco-cement technology, environmentally friendly reputation and product. The dog shit cement referred to by Argyriou is irrelevant and he seems unable to support it with references. My research indicates it is an yet another example of an unimportant rip-off or our name that post dates our common law right. The reference to Lin, K.L.; Chiang, K.Y.; Lin, C.Y. (June 2005). "Hydration characteristics of waste sludge ash that is reused in eco-cement clinkers". Cement and Concrete Research 35 (6): 1074–1081 also falls into the category of a minor post dated rip off of the name. Taiheiyo released ecocement (all one word) around 2002 (thus post dating our contribution to science and the effort to stop global warming). It is a more disguised post dated rip off of our name some years after we started using the name eco-cement. In this respect Bláthnaid 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC) did inadequate research. I repeat, the Japanese product is called ecocement (all one word) not eco-cement. Taiheiyo will probably get away with it legally and we have no plans to challenge them (they are bigger than us!!).

It is discouraging that so many Wikipedians seem to want to have a hand in rewriting fact or history, not in putting together a world class assemblage of actual fact! Wikipedia exists to record only so those who suggest the page be generalised need to be aware that eco-cement or Eco-Cement is a blend of reactive magnesia and another hydraulic cement such as Portland cement and usually a pozzolan. It is not something or anything else. It is important and should be referenced and the arguement about brand names is a red herring.

I agree however that Wikipedia would be diminished if it became an advertising bill board so edit it down if you like but do not change the name as doing so would be reinventing both history and sience.

[edit] Changing the name of the Page

One or two people have made the comment that the name eco-cement should not be there as it is a brand name.

The precursor to modern day cement was invented by Smeaton in 1759. It was Joseph Aspidin that gave his particular and superior formulation the name "Portland cement". The most used material on the planet next to water was originally a brand name. Who still thinks it should be deleted?

[edit] A Page About Environmentally Friendly Cements

If I had the time I would write a page on environmentally friendly cement and refer to the page on eco-cements. If anybody does have the time then they should include geopolymers, tec and eco-cements, slag and fly ash cements, belite sulphoaluminate cements and a whole host of other formulations I have referred to in some of my articles on our web site at [7]. Unless you really are an expert please stay away from the task as remember, Wikipedia exists to record important facts, not create them.

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.