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The result was nomination withdrawn. Page redirected to Compressed earth block#Development. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch brick (stabilized earth block) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Probable hoax, unsourced for five years. Can't find a single reliable (rather than commercial) source which documents it as a type of brick.The nearest I can find is something called Dutch Masters Brick, which seems to actually be Dutch and a producer of brick or something which has been used in Irish building.But clearly not what this article is about! I find it hard to believe that "Dutch brick" would be a common term used for the bricks of houses in west Africa! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete By going back to the first version of the article and using it as a basis for searching I found this thirty-year-old Peace Corps newsletter which has a very passing reference to "Dutch Brick" as a type of well construction. Everything else I've found is either obviously irrelevant, traceable to us, or quite recent and therefore hard not to trace to us. It's possible that this was Peace Corps jargon of a certain era but I can't be sure even of that and certainly not of what it meant. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or expand and rename Dutch brick is clearly a notable, hard, paving brick as can be seen by an internet search and defined as such in Sturgis' dictionary. Bricks as described in this article clearly exist as stabilized, compressed earth block and stabilized adobe or stabilized mud block in general. So, the question becomes how obscure the "colloquial term" Dutch brick is and whether the article should be renamed something like stabilized mud block or merged into another article such as mud brick. Page 48 of this 1955 study of earth building techniques in Africa describes a Portland cement stabilized mud coating as "Dutch plaster", but I cannot find a reference for the Dutch brick described in this article. I must say I feel Wikipedia's policy on notability should be refined. I see the need for limiting articles on biographies, rock bands, organizations, etc. but sometimes the obscure, unpopular information in the history of building construction is the most valuable information. I understand that a non-notable topic may not deserve its own article but certainly can be included in a broader article as there is no notability standard for the information within an article. However, there is a tendency in the area of construction topics to give each small topic its own article. One advantage of this is interlanguage linking to similar topics. Jim Derby (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sturgis definition is not for the same thing! And the problem I'm coming upon in this is that, at the moment, the only authority I can find for this definition of "Dutch brick" is the original, eight-year-old Wikipedia article, which was put in by an IP who gave no citations whatsoever. Notability doesn't even begin to be the issue; even the most minimal standard of verifiability is not met. We not only lack good sources, we lack bad sources. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncomfortable with merging into mudbrick. These bricks, made on site using cement and local materials such as earth, sand and gravel, are more a type of concrete brick, but I do not see merging into the article on concrete either. To the development community what distinguishes them is that they are a cheap "Dutch" solution that can be made locally, not so much what they are made of. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some content with sources. The Dutch bricks described in this article are real enough, and important in the developing world. It is a legitimate subject. Most search results use the term to mean bricks from the Netherlands - the Dutch have been making and exporting bricks for a long time - so perhaps there is a better title? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion looks good, but there still remains some dubious claims which need to be sourced and I'm not convinced that the article title is suitable either. "Dutch brick is a colloquial term for blocks formed by concrete stabilized soil used to form blocks" Says who? I see little evidence of it as an actual term, rather I see sources which refer to bricks exported from the Netherlands. How about Brick production in the Netherlands and you could include the other side of it in terms of production as well as the use of them in African development? That would be really notable I think and a more appropriate context. I'd then remove the current unsourced material about it being a term and change it so it is centred around the Dutch brick making industry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There are two completely different things. Dutch bricks made in the Netherlands could easily be the subject of an article - there are many sources that discuss them. They are kiln-fired clay bricks, often yellow, prized for their quality, exported to other countries, used for paving and so on. This article is about concrete bricks made of cement, sand and gravel, or cement and earth, made on site and cured in the open air, used for wells and houses in developing countries. They have nothing to do with the Netherlands.The name is just a slang term meaning they are not "real bricks", sort of like "Dutch oven". This article should kept but moved to something like "Dutch brick (concrete)". Aymatth2 (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't find anything much on so-called Dutch bricks, but there is quite a bit about Mexican concrete (as an admixture of dirt and concrete). See Google Book results, even filtering out the sources that simply juxtapose Mexican and concrete in discussion of other subjects. I am uncomfortable with what comes across as a bit disparaging. is there a more established name for this type of admixture? Can user:Giano or some other editor with expertise in the architecture field suggest better terminology for us to use to cover this subject more broadly? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to soil cement? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have the uncomfortable feeling that there are three different meanings for this term:

1. Bricks made in the Netherlands - much the most common meaning for the term
2. Bricks with a trapezoidal shape suitable for lining wells in developing countries
3. Bricks made locally from cement and soil in developing countries

Often type 2 bricks are also type 3, but type 2 can be made with standard concrete using cement, sand and gravel, and type 3 can be rectangular, suitable for low-cost housing. The article as it stands blends types 2 and 3. Perhaps that is not a problem - but there must be a better name. WP is not a dictionary, but there seems to be room on each meaning to give a reasonable article with plenty of sources. Meaning 1 is clearly a rich topic, but I hesitate to rename this one to make room for it until this discussion is resolved. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, some editors freak out if efforts are made to fix articles while they are part of a deletion discussion. This is unfortunate and goes against core principles, but it is what it is. If you are volunteering to work on it, I think userfication would be reasonable. As the article stands it has some problems. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Compared to the typical AfD article there are easily enough sources to show that the subject is notable, so the article should be kept. But the name is wrong. The term "Dutch brick" almost always means "Netherlands brick". And I have the feeling this article should be split into two, one about using cement and local materials (sand, gravel, maybe soil) to make bricks on site at low cost, and the other about using trapezoidal bricks to make wells, latrines etc. If someone can suggest reasonable target titles, I can do the move and split, and start one on the Netherlands bricks. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The phrase dutch brick is no hoax - it's an entry in the OED, for one thing. As there seem to be a variety of meanings, then this is a matter of disambiguation not deletion. Andrew (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have moved the disputed page and this discussion to Dutch brick (stabilized earth block) - I think. Before doing so I started Brick-lined well to cover meaning 2 above, copying some content, and copied some other content into Compressed earth block, which is where the original article probably should have redirected in the first place. This makes way for a proper article on the primary meaning of the term, which looks interesting.

The article is now a fork of Compressed earth block, into which it should be merged (is that grammatical?), but that is a different question. The article on Compressed earth block is hopelessly US-centric and unsourced. I may try to add some balance, I hope I have not muddled the issue too badly. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd forgotten about this article and AFD and haven't been active of late. I think you've done an excellent job in sorting out the mess and you did the right thing converting the Dutch brick article into a general one and moving this. I think though you should just redirect this into Brick-lined well. Nomination withdrawn♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Glad to see the nomination withdrawn, and to see good work about trying to sort this out. --doncram 02:58, 26 April 2014 (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.