Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air entrainment

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. Not a strong deletion rationale, by the way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Air entrainment

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

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

Autoclaved aerated concrete is a much better article so perhaps we don't need this unsourced article Chidgk1 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Technology. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic has quite a few publications in peer-reviewed literature: [1][2][3] to give three. I think the concept is distinct enough from autoclaved aerated concrete to allow for a distinct article. Sources would have to be worked into the article, of course, and perhaps a change of title to "Air entrainment (concrete)" would be helpful. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; The concept of entrainment and the material that may be used are sufficiently different to warrant their own articles. ~~From my view, it would be akin to redirecting Ceramic to Brake pad all things being equal.~~ It definitely does need citations though. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That analogy doesn't make much sense on second thought; that being said, the process is sufficiently separate compared to a specific implementation of the technique. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Some reasonable references but it could do with more. As a Technical Editor for Springer, I do have access to journals but at the moment I don't have enough free time to help much GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I added the missing references. --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2023 (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.