Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High viscosity mixer


 * 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. The suggestion to rename this for the process, not the machine which performs the process, seems reasonable, but that sounds like the kind of content debate which should be carried out on the article's talk page, so no action on that from this AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

High viscosity mixer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article isn't notable. For the present time, at least, it would be better to focus effort on Industrial mixer. RSido (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Short article without much potential for further expansion; can easily be integrated into other(s), such as Industrial mixer as mentioned. Amp71 (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep High viscosity mixing is a distinct, well-studied, industrial process and its application and means of success are a serious discipline. It would be better named after the process than the instrument, but any one voting delete could have first done a google book and a scholar search to give you pause as to your own assumptions about the topic and its notability. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC))


 * Keep "High viscosity mixing" seems to be a notable topic, with chapters and sections in books like and  and articles like . There are academic articles such as  and . The article is a stub and needs development and sourcing, but these are surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2014 (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.