Deletion of Difference of fatigue strength in vacuum and air

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: The main topic is not original.  For example, see ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Xu6w-jFrHowC&pg=PA768 In Vacuo Fatigue'' or ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kAITv4fPU7IC&pg=PA12 Low-cycle Fatigue and Life Prediction''.  The topic just requires improvement per our |editing policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: 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  I would prefer to see it merged somewhere over having the information lost completely.  My first reaction was to suggest Fatigue (material), but
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)