Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioenvironmental Engineering (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Bioenvironmental Engineering
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced meandering, no sources found Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - come on man. The style of the article may need some work and certainly it needs sources, but those exist in spades. How much more official than this do you want it? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. The article is poorly sourced and written. However it is quite clear there are sources - e.g. books or Bioenvironmental Engineering Undergraduate Program at Rutgers.Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The creator of the article hasn't edited for ten years or so and I wish he had done more. I think the article is fixable.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Source was weak in the article but they are out there as pointed out by Elmidae. Would be good if Wikipedia could change its policy for every article and content should by support not only by sources but also inline citations to be accepted as a public article by editor who input the info instead place the content there and waiting for other interested editor to fix it. This article is the example as it has been around for more than 10 years, with no interested editors come along, and nothing much has been done on citing source. Wikipedia is based on openness concept but sometimes guidelines could change to prerequisite rules to edit- this is just merely my opinion. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Sources are there that show it's a very definitely a career/degree/post (though not every job title necessarily deserves a page about it). It would be especially great if editors who, having taken the trouble to find sources and argue for a keep, would be willing to go just that little bit further and pop a few of those references into the article under examination. I agree with  sentiment: it does often seem we're having to clear up after other people's laziness in referencing. It's exactly the same at WP:NPP, and it's only at WP:AFC that good quality referencing really gets pushed for. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.