Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optomechatronics

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. Both a procedural Keep (Nom withdrew) but also consensus that issues were resolved per improvement. With thanks to Mark viking for WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Optomechatronics[edit]

[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)

Below dictionary standard. Rathfelder (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have expanded the article into a modest referenced stub. Multiple reliable sources found in a simple WP:BEFORE search and the fact that the field has its own journal and conference series all show this to be a notable topic. With the sub-stub problem fixed, there is no reason to delete this article. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 13:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 14:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw my nomination. Rathfelder (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2018 (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.