Deletion of Energetically modified cement (2nd nomination)

Comment: and severely admonish or block Jono2013. His misbehavior made me come into this AfD with a predisposition towards deleting the article. But my standard for articles on research topics is , that they must be the subject of multiple reliable independent publications. Most of the EMC publications in Google scholar involve a group centered around V. Ronin, but there are enough that don't such as http://www.aycrete.com/pdf's/phd_conf_wienna.pdf this one to convince me that this topic is sufficiently notable. On the other hand, I think far too much of the article is promotional in nature (stressing the benefits of this technology and downplaying its deficiencies) and based on primary sources (Ronin-co-authored publications) and that it should be cut back to what can be verified through independent sources only
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: on the simple basis that it passes . Any other faults may be removed by editing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: spaced ndash}} per source availability and the depth-of-coverage of many sources, this topic passes Wikipedia's |General notability guideline. Source examples include
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)