Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainability in Engineering

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability in Engineering

The topic as such may be notable, but the present content is rather useless. It's jargon-laden non-contextual word salad, and probably mostly a copyvio of the (indubitably most learned) works of A. M. Hasna (compare e.g. the lead sentence to this abstract). Sandstein 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the concept is notable and the content is junk, then you don't AFD it, you change it, tag it, stub it, or something else. If it is a copyvio, then it needs to be tagged as one, with the source listed, where it will be deleted for that. Basically, I am saying the nomination itself is fatally flawed, and would respectfully say that it should be withdrawn. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have speedied it as G11. If the concept is encyclopedic, why is it supported by two recent papers and a master's thesis, all from the same author? And why does it read like a puff piece? Are we now going to have articles that have only a title and no contents at all because the topic just might be encyclopedic, but the contents is unsalvageable and has to be deleted? VG ☎ 10:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A shameless promotion of a book. Most of the text is lifted off the publisher's site as the nom noted, and I wouldn't be surprised if the rest is copied from the book itself. But regardless of copyright issues, I see this as blatant advertising. Owen× ☎ 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My brother is majoring in building construction, and he is enrolled in a class called sustainability in construction which is aimed for structural engineers, architects, and building construction students. Given that engineering is so vague, i.e. the application of science to the needs of humanity (my father in law is an engineer btw) that this topic already misunderstands the scope of engineering. There exists medical engineering all the way to aerospace engineering, and this article is mainly about the inadvertent promotion of the book. This article (and the person's book) only helps people's misunderstanding of the scope of engineering. There is no centralized sustainability in engineering, because the field is diverse. Medical engineers would explore the idea of sustainability in medicine and aerospace engineers would explore sustainability in aerospace but engineers branch way before there is some grand all-encompassing sustainability theme that unifies sustainability from all fields of engineering, which is what the article is trying to do, which wouldn't even work if the article passes Afd. Editorially, I believe the topic itself is dubious, and is only piggybacking on the sum of notability of related topics. Sentriclecub (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Not part of my reason to vote, just clearification) A medical engineer is closer to a doctor or a biochemist, than is a medical engineer to a structural engineer or to a LHC theoretical physics engineer. They don't even take the same type of engineering exam! All doctors (spanning from psychiatrists to dermatologists) in contrast take the USMLE 1, 2, and 3, and they all take the mcat. This would be going a step backwards about believing that engineers can be grouped. They are radically different and this article's first three words are already flawed. The Engineering profession there isn't one.
Delete in current state. Topic has some merit but at the moment has no place in an encyclopaedia. MvjsTalking 00:42, 12 October 2008 (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.