From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. by strength of arguments and sources presented. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 15:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Cariphalte

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Cariphalte (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two No Consensus AfDs, the most recent in 2014. I can find only one source newer than that AfD, but none of the sourcing establishes notability for this product. It simply mentions that it exists, not how well it performs or anything close to in depth. StarM 01:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in its present form this is not really any better than a dictionary definition. Not every product is notable, and there is no sourcing here that in any way suggests why this product might be notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last go
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete already. Claims of additional sourcing and notability have not been proven. Time to let this one go already and stop the "no consensus" carousel. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: A cursory Google search establishes that lots of sources exist, and make it clear that this is a well-known product in the industry. These include at least two peer-reviewed studies (5 and 6 in the links that follow), contrary to one of the professed reasons for nominating this article ("the sourcing [doesn't establish] how well it performs or anything close to in depth"). Examples of sources: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8. Other sources were also raised in this article's previous nominations; they simply have not been incorporated into the article. Johnpacklambert and TenPoundHammer appear to be basing notability off of the state of the article, but that is not how notability works. Incidentally, the nominator's claim that there were "Two No Consensus AfDs" is just flat-out false: The first was closed as a keep. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 20:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. An, Yanqing; Zianzhi, Shao (September 2014). "Effect of Aging on Rheological Property of Cariphalte Modified Asphalt". Applied Mechanics and Materials. 638–640: 1149–1152. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.638-640.1149. ISSN  1660-9336. Archived from the original on 2021-03-01. Retrieved 2021-03-01 – via ProQuest.

      This is a peer-reviewed article about Cariphalte. According to this page from SCImago Journal Rank, "Applied Mechanics and Materials is a peer-reviewed journal which specializes in the publication of proceedings of international scientific conferences, workshops and symposia as well as special volumes on topics of contemporary interest in all areas which are related to: 1) Research and design of mechanical systems, machines and mechanisms; ..."

    2. Hua, Tan (September 2014). "Study of Rheological Properties of Cariphalte Modified Asphalt". Applied Mechanics and Materials. Vol. 638–640. pp. 1185–1189. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.638-640.1185. ISSN  1660-9336. Archived from the original on 2021-03-01. Retrieved 2021-03-01 – via ProQuest.

      This is a second peer-reviewed article about Cariphalte from Applied Mechanics and Materials.

    3. "Tackling Reflective Cracks". Civil Engineering. Morgan Grampian: 30. May 1988. ISSN  0305-6473. Retrieved 2021-03-01 – via Internet Archive.

      The article notes, "It is with this problem specifically in mind that Shell Bitumen UK introduced a polymer modified bitumen — Cariphalte DM. The binder is made from a special two-component, highly polymer compatible bitumen, ... As a result, when a surfacing bound with Cariphalte DM is loaded by a moving wheel, a greater proportion of the deformation induced by this load will be recovered. ... Since the commercial introduction of Cariphalte DM in 1986 over 400 000 m2 of hot-rolled asphalt containing this binder have been laid on sites ranging from Cleveland in the north to Kent in the south. The majority of this use has been overlaying old concrete carriageways on motorways and trunk roads, such as the M20, M2, A4 at Hammersmith, A10 and the Dartford Tunnel approach road."

    4. Hunter, Robert N. (1997) [1994]. Bituminous Mixtures in Road Construction. London: Thomas Telford. p. 36. ISBN  0-7277-1683-2. Retrieved 2021-03-01 – via Google Books.

      The book notes, "Fig. 1.18 shows the nature of the change in the BTDC profile between a 50 pen bitumen and one styrene block co-polymer, styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) which is produced by Shell Bitumen and marketed as Cariphalte DM. The improved elasticity of the binder makes it suitable for use with hot-rolled asphalt wearing courses overlying cementitious bases, lean concrete roadbases or old concrete carriageways. ... Shell Bitumen produces an alternative binder, Cariphalte DA, which is used for friction course mixtures."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cariphalte to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 07:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a third time per sources presented much later in the discussion. Further input from other users regarding those sources would be beneficial here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Nom comment I don't see that those sources do anything but prove it exists, which isn't in doubt. They're not significant or in depth coverage. StarM 14:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Star Mississippi, it is difficult to see how, if you read—or even just glanced at—the sources in question, you came to that conclusion. At least four peer-reviewed articles, expressly about Cariphalte, its properties, and its performance, have been cited. Then there are the news articles: among others, an interview about Cariphalte to mark the product's 50th anniversary, an article about how and why the Bugatti Circuit of Le Mans was repaved with Cariphalte, and an article about how any why Cariphalte was selected for the Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge. In short, there's plenty of coverage, it's directly about Cariphalte, and it's in depth. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 04:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep References provided by Cunard above meet the requirements for establishing notability of a product as per WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 20:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cariphalte_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1011194006"