Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Difference of fatigue strength in vacuum and air


 * 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   merge to Fatigue (material). ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Difference of fatigue strength in vacuum and air

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research. This appears to be the original research of a group of college students. The research does not appear to have been previously published in any peer-reviewed journal, so it is not appropriate for inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The main topic is not original. For example, see In Vacuo Fatigue or Low-cycle Fatigue and Life Prediction.  The topic just requires improvement per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The effects of vacuum and air on fatigue could be mentioned in the article fatigue (material), if they're discussed in reliable sources (currently there's a mention of the varying effects of "presence of oxidizing or inert chemicals" and a brief section on the effects of environment, mentioning corrosion fatigue). But this not currently good encyclopedic content: it's original research. Even if it was fully referenced, I see no reason to have an article devoted to comparing fatigue in these two specific media when it could be discussed in the general fatigue article (where will this end - should we have an article "Difference of fatigue strength in nitrogen and argon"?) --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be sensible to extend the article to cover the effect on fatigue of various common environments such as sea-water, oil-bath, &c. This would be done by ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I have rewritten the article from a good source, so removing all trace of OR and making the above hostile comments obsolete. Warden (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 16:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment As rewritten, the article is no longer OR, but it is still barely viable as an article and would better serve merged with Fatigue (material). WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Environmental Stress Cracking, Stress Corrosion Cracking or Environmental stress fracture seem to be better targets but notice that there are three of them. In my experience, the more one looks, the more complex such matters become.  It is not for AFD to settle such questions; just to decide whether to delete or not. Warden (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete From the discussion above it seems that the OR has been removed, but that simply leaves us with information which would be better covered under the scope of the greater article. There are countless comparisons and differences between things in the world, but that does not mean the information is best communicated to the reader in specific individual articles. This is a good example of an article where it would be better to contribute to already existing articles rather than let the information stay spread out in an attempt to "rescue" something of original research.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. Too slight for inclusion. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete or Merge: The article's subject matter is far too narrowly focused, and it doesn't seem likely that it could grow much beyond a stub. However, the content (as recently rewritten) is valid, so per WP:PRESERVE I would prefer to see it merged somewhere over having the information lost completely.  My first reaction was to suggest Fatigue (material), but Warden suggested some good alternatives.  Regardless, it doesn't seem to me that this article is viable. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Too slight? Can't grow beyond a stub?  It appears that commentators don't understand how extensively this topic has been studied.  Here's two dozen papers to give you an idea and there appear to be thousands more.  I might do more with the topic myself but currently find the stress of this discussion to be fatiguing:
 * Characteristics of fatigue fracture of magnesium alloy MA12 in air and in vacuum
 * Crack tip geometry for fatigue cracks grown in air and vacuum
 * Deformation and damage processes in a 12% CrMo V steel under high temperature low cycle fatigue conditions in air and vacuum
 * Development of environment controllable micro mechanical testing machine and the influence of vacuum on fracture and fatigue in aramid single fiber
 * Environmental Effects on Fatigue Crack Growth in 7075 Aluminum Alloy
 * Fatigue crack growth mechanics for Ti-6Al-4V (RA) in vacuum and humid air
 * Fatigue crack micromechanisms in ingot and powder metallurgy 7xxx aluminum alloys in air and vacuum
 * Fatigue Crack Nucleation and Growth Mechanisms for Ti6Al4V in Different Environments
 * Fatigue Damage Mechanism of Titanium in Vacuum and in Air
 * Fractography of fatigue crack propagation in 2024-T3 and 7075-16 aluminum alloys in air and vacuum
 * Friction and Wear Behavior of Nanocrystalline Nickel in Air and Vacuum
 * Improved bending fatigue and corrosion properties of a Mg-Al-Mn alloy by super vacuum die casting
 * Improving Fatigue Performance of CFRP Strengthened Steel Beams by Applying Vacuum Pressure in the Wet Layup of CFRP Woven Sheets
 * Microstructure evolution during cycling in vacuum and air environments
 * Morphological Aspects of Fatigue Crack Formation and Growth
 * Plastic strain fatigue in air and vacuum
 * Plastic zone around fatigue cracks of pure iron in vacuum and dry air
 * Sliding behavior of dual phase steels in vacuum and in air
 * Slow fatigue crack growth and threshold behaviour in air and vacuum of commercial aluminium alloys
 * The effect of air and vacuum environments on fatigue crack growth rates in Ti-6Al-4V
 * The fatigue behavior of a zirconium-based bulk metallic glass in vacuum and air
 * The slow fatigue crack growth and threshold behaviour of a medium carbon alloy steel in air and vacuum
 * Vacuum Levels Needed to Simulate Internal Fatigue Crack Growth in Titanium Alloys and Nickel-Base Superalloys
 * Wear life mechanism of journal bearings with bonded MoS2 film lubricants in air and vacuum
 * Warden (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ... ... trivial, too few, non-independent, passing mentions, not news, insignificant, too many, copyvio, BLP, unreliable, ... zzzzz, ..... Thincat (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge with Fatigue (material) but by that I do not mean merely to redirect. Editorially a merge is sensible though I expect the article can be massaged to meet WP:GNG. I do not understand people !voting "delete" and going on to say that the information should be included in some other article. Is that not very close to going against our policy of requiring attribution even within WP? The Colonel quite properly raises the matter of multiple possible merge targets. In this case cross-linking to the eventually selected target would work I think. If in any doubt, "keep". Thincat (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: After further reflection, it seems to me that this article may be salvaged if it were renamed to something like Environmental effects on fatigue strength or Variations in fatigue strength in different media. That way, the article could also include coverage of other variables such as fatigue strength of materials immersed in water, oil, etc.  An article that is just devoted to a comparison of a single set of environmental variables (vacuum and air) is too narrow (i.e. would it be acceptable to have a whole series of separate articles involving various other combinations of variables such as air/water, water/vacuum, etc.)?  But if the article's scope were broadened to cover the entire topic of how the surrounding environment affects fatigue strength, then I could change my vote to "Keep." --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge as has been suggested seems like the best course. It is perfectly valid to cite peer-review articles, even original research, within an article, but not to have an entire article made of original research. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * merge, and consider separating if expanded. The purpose of AfD is not merely to decide on deletion, but to find the appropriate solution for articles where deletion is suggested.  This will some necessarily involve the consideration of other existing and potential articles, and an analysis of article content.  DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge: Title is nonsensical, and content belongs in another article  p  b  p  02:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Fatigue (material), which is not large enough to justify having breakout articles like this. As Warden has pointed out, there is plenty of material with which to cover this topic, but I don't think it's best covered in a standalone article at this point.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC).
 * 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.