Deletion of Ceramic chemistry

Comment: I'm assuming none of the IPs here have ever studied Physics and Chemistry... Also, every single one seems to be ignoring the fact that the nominator claims it doesn't exist, which is the sole grounds for nomination, thus this should've been closed. I'm concerned by the similar formatting of the IPs as well (the fact they all use support/strong support, and none of them sign their comments). 194.126.226.123 has completely ignored every single source in this AfD: and made completely irrelevant comments about the fact it doesn't have its own course (that would be because it is a module, or within a module...). 115.87.208.163 has made irrelevant comments about the original author of this, since the original author hasn't edited since 2011, and nor have any of the "alleged socks" edited since then, therefore this article is perfectly fixable. 203.163.103.7 makes partially, at least, incorrect statements about glass (I'm British, so don't try throwing in the "only Americans think this" point) and fully incorrect statements about pottery (which is blatantly a ceramic by any definition). I suggest the IPs read  as pointed out by Mike viking, and realize that articles have been fixed from far worse states than this - see my comment about Valmet 361 D. Anyone claiming ceramic chemistry doesn't exist is ignoring all sources presented here, let alone logic, and there are plenty of reliable sources presented by myself and Mike Agricola (no, I'm NOT arguing the spammer's website was a reliable source, I only presented that to show this subject matter exists!) to show the notability of this
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:SURMOUNTABLE)

Comment: Both Mike Agricola and Lukeno94 have demonstrated multiple reliable sources that go in depth on the subject of ceramic chemistry. Looking at the article and talk page comments, it is clear that the article mainly discusses one aspect of ceramic chemistry, which could be considered a non-neutral POV, but there is nothing preventing folks from filling out the article with a more general approach. In short, the topic is highly notable and the article problems surmountable per , which suggests that this article be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:SURMOUNTABLE)