Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layer (electronics)

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I'll leave the issue of redirecting to the normal editing/discussion process. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Layer (electronics)

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

As far as I can see, this is just a dictionary definition. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "this" ? The topic is a good one, as "layer" has a long and interesting history in electronics. Two-dimensional geometry, and its limitations, are hugely important in the physical design of electronics. Every new electronic construction technology (PCBs, hybrids, LSI, connection machines) has introduced a layer-based construction technique with its benefits and the difficulties when construction needs to be more than two-dimensional (how are bridges and crossings to be made?). This is a topic for a great potential article.
The article, as it stands, is a long way short of even a dictionary definition and no good case can be made for keeping it. A redlink might be better, as an indication that there's a gap worth filling. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as expandable. As far as I can tell, there is almost no English common noun other than a neologism or an extremely rare technical term that is not capable of being expanded from a definition into a Wikipedia article, I'm being prudent and saying "almost no", but so far I have not been able to find any in wiktionary where I think it couldn't be done. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect content fork of coating. Despite what the the article says, coating can be used to describe a layer of any thickness and this should just redirect there. thin film should also be merged into coating, but that is a different discussion. Yoenit (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ It appears that the article is expandable as well as being a "base" generic article for both coating and thin film. However, without a verifiable reference that backs up the main subject description I wouldn't be opposed to a merge or perhaps a disambiguous page that could point to either coating or thin film. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 14:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, the article is incorrect in stating that a coating has to have a thickness greater than a micrometer. See for example this gscholar search [1]. I am not sure to which of these articles you have access, but I have read at least a dozen on the first two pages which talk about coatings with a thickness of a few nanometers. Thin films are a subset of coatings and this article is just a synonym. Yoenit (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I was kind of leaning towards a redirect but I couldn't say so definitively before based on what I could research. I'll agree on it being a synonym. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 15:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A layer is not the same as a film or coating as it may not be on the surface. For example, see C.M.O.S. devices fabricated on buried SiO2 layers formed by oxygen implantation into silicon. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2010 (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.