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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sintered polyethylene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The body of the topic can be found in the article Sintering. In my opinion a stand alone article is not needed. Additionally, Sintering has more general attention and thus will be updated. Sintering, and sputtering, seems obscure but it is important and it is covered elsewhere in a very good overview article. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back. There's one line of cited test. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:GNG, per the references in the expanded article. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As far as I can tell, the article on Sintering did not go so detailed on the topic of Sintered polyethylene, and the latter seem to have enough content to justify a separate article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2022 (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.