Talk:Engineer diver

Move?

 * Engineer Diver → Engineer diver — Wikipedia rules versus commercial diver-training companies' rules re letter case? --Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a tough call, Anthony. Looking for online sources with Google produced about half and half. Wikipedia guidelines would capitalise both only if they were both proper nouns - more as a title than a job description. There does exist a military specialisation called "Engineer Diver", but this article doesn't discuss that. I eventually tried to think of something that was a compound of two jobs and came up with Barber surgeon. Not an exact analogy, but Wikipedia doesn't capitalise the second word even in that. On balance, I think I'd support your suggestion of making the move, although I'd give it a few days to see if anyone else comments. --RexxS (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. By the lead, the scope of the article seems to be the profession rather than any particular professional qualification, although the text does read like a course brochure in places. Possible advert and copyvio issues there. So I'm inclined to think that the article should develop in the direction of the lead rather than the text, and the move would help this. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is this occupation recognised?
It looks like this is an occupation which is only recognised in a few countries (if any). There are remarkably few references available online. It seems that in most places one can be an engineer and a diver without being considered an engineer diver, or at least without anyone mentioning the combination on the internet. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Not notable?
The main source for this article is a proposal for a Master's degree in underwater inspection for engineers published in 2007 and there is no evidence that it ever got any further. Unless someone can come up with a plausible reason to keep it, I will propose for deletion at the end of March. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that it's been around since 2009 and does have some relevant sources, deletion may not be the best option and you may have a fight to show it doesn't meet WP:GNG. On the other hand, it's never going to expand beyond its present size. It might be worth having a think about other articles on similar topics where its sources and some of the content might make a useful section – Professional diving would be a possible candidate. That would only require a merge, which is much less fuss than deletion, and the title would be preserved as a redirect. What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked into the sources to the extent reasonably practicable, and am not convinced that they prove the existence of a class of diver formally recognised as Engineer divers. It looks like there are engineers who are divers (as I am one I don't need much convincing), but this is incidental. There are geologists who are divers and marine biologists who are divers, which is just as relevant, but they are not noted as Geologist divers or Ichthyologist divers or whatever. They are considered scientific divers because they do diving for scientific purposes, or because they have a certification that identifies them as Scientific Divers (CMAS etc) Although I wouldn't be surprised to see PADI come up with a two day specialty course for any or all of them...
 * If the article were to be merged, what would it be merged into, and what part of it would be worth merging? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'd be looking at a sub-section of Professional diving, but the more I look, the less certain I am. I did a Google search for "Engineer diver" and found one job at https://www.indeed.com/q-Engineer-Diver-jobs.html titled "Engineer diver". The same search gave Royal Engineers Diver and Commando Engineer Diver, but as we already have an article titled Army engineer diver, they would be better used to expand that, as it's very US-centric at present. Most of the rest of the sources look like a misspelling of "driver", so I agree the sourcing is very thin. Of the sources presently in this article the only one specifically related to the title is the proposal for a Masters degree course in Underwater Inspection for Engineers. Perhaps a single sentence saying something like "In 2007, a proposal was made to the IEEEfor a Masters degree course in Underwater Inspection for Engineers.{ref}" is all that's worth saving? The doi for the ref leads to http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4302243/ which still works. If you do decide to take it to AfD, I won't object, but it's rarely a simple process in my experience. --RexxS (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a copy of the IEEE source if you want to see it. I would not have started an article on such thin evidence. The original poster may have had hopes of the proposal coming to reality, but in my opinion jumped the gun. I have no dog in this fight other than an inability to make anything useful out of this stub, and the feeling that we are trying to fix a thing that is not so much broken, as hypothetical or imaginary, and which drifts uncomfortably near the false "facts" we try to eliminate. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 02:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The original poster made a total of 45 edits on Wikipedia, all on this article, in 2009, and one upload on Commons, of the photo of a diver in a band mask claimed to be an engineer diver, but indistinguishable from any ordinary commercial diver.
 * Is it worth mentioning that a failed proposal was made, that was apparently just ignored by the industry, not even raising a controversy? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 03:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your analysis rings true and on balance, you're probably right that the current article really doesn't add anything encyclopedic. Is the title worth keeping as a redirect to Army engineer diver on the grounds of "plausible search term"? --RexxS (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think so. That seems a perfectly plausible search term. It could also be a disambiguation with links to your examples above when needed. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The original poster made a total of 45 edits on Wikipedia, all on this article, in 2009, and one upload on Commons, of the photo of a diver in a band mask claimed to be an engineer diver, but indistinguishable from any ordinary commercial diver.
 * Is it worth mentioning that a failed proposal was made, that was apparently just ignored by the industry, not even raising a controversy? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 03:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your analysis rings true and on balance, you're probably right that the current article really doesn't add anything encyclopedic. Is the title worth keeping as a redirect to Army engineer diver on the grounds of "plausible search term"? --RexxS (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think so. That seems a perfectly plausible search term. It could also be a disambiguation with links to your examples above when needed. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think so. That seems a perfectly plausible search term. It could also be a disambiguation with links to your examples above when needed. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think so. That seems a perfectly plausible search term. It could also be a disambiguation with links to your examples above when needed. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge and redirect proposal
This article appears to be about something that does not exist and is not notable. (see discussion above). I propose to merge anything that is worth keeping into Professional diving and redirect to Army engineer diver as a plausible alternative search string. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Cut back OR, merged remains as proposed and discussed, and converted to disambiguation page. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)