Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Induced high electron mobility transistor


 * 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 redirect to High-electron-mobility transistor.  So Why  10:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Induced high electron mobility transistor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Moving it here from Prod; I have no opinion. Rationale was: Article misses clear definition, the keyword can hardly be found elsewhere, page provides only one irrelevant link to one university's research group with no info on HEMT. If needed, a mention on induced high electron mobility transistor can still be left in the HEMT page.  DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * delete I can find "piezo-induced" and "polarization-induced" HEMTs, but only a single patent on just "induced HEMTs". Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge/Delete??
 * Merge to High-electron-mobility_transistor as preferable to deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  13:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn't appear to be a WP:NOTABLE subject, nor is it even WP:NOTEWORTHY enough for inclusion at High-electron-mobility_transistor. Without sufficient weight at the article (or even a citation), a merge doesn't seem appropriate. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to High-electron-mobility_transistor. Seems to be the same thing - already there - easy-peasy. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  20:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be except that the section has no citations, and I'd say we need more than a patent to justify such a section. Mangoe (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If the options are to just delete this, do nothing or redirect, my vote is to redirect. I looked a bit and can't find a decent citation. I hatnoted High-electron-mobility_transistor as unreferenced to hopefully incite someone to add a citation (no pun intended). The article creator has unfortunately long ago stopped editing, but you'd think with the numerous editors adding info over time that it has some substance. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  23:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect: per . Merge is unnecessary as the content is essentially a duplicate.    Dr Strauss   talk   08:09, 4 August 2017 (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.