Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of architectural 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 keep. This has been open two weeks with no delete votes, and the original rationale for deletion no longer applies. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

History of architectural engineering

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a list of colleges providing degree in architectural engineering, not a history. Daiyusha (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The list of colleges is in order of accreditation date, which is a historical account of architectural engineering. AnthonyLudwar (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2018
 * Keep, or "Speedy Keep". There is no reason for deletion suggested in the nomination.  There's no reason for AFD editors to cast about and try to come up with a reason either;  there are other, legitimate AFD nominations to consider instead. --Doncram (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The article leaves a lot to be desired, but that is not a reason for deletion.Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. The deletion nominator seems to be new and unaware of some guidelines.  It appears to me they wanted to implement a merge, in effect, but instead they copied the content of the AFD article to another (architectural engineering) and then they proposed the deletion of the AFD article.  That's not how a merger is to be done, one reason being that it erases, improperly, the edit contribution history of the work done by editors who composed the table.  I posted just now at User talk:AnthonyLudwar to give them some info and to ask them to withdraw this AFD nomination.  Whether or not they do, I think this could still be closed immediately by anyone with Speedy Keep, because it is just procedurally wrong. --Doncram (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ooops, argh, the deletion nominator is a different person. AnthonyLudwar's edit copying the table without attribution is still wrong, and I still think this should be closed, but they were not the nominator. --Doncram (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I made the table myself where I copied from is where I made it and I am the one who added it to (architectural engineering). I'm new to wiki. I'm a student trying to do a project. I have more pictures of me sorting and a word document where I gathered information on all the school. I am not fond of being accused of taking other peoples work when I spent a lot of time getting imformation and learning how to make a table in wiki. AnthonyLudwar (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2018 (MT)
 * I am sorry, indeed, to have misunderstood the situation twice then. No more need to prove about your having developed the information, so you weren't wrong to copy it in elsewhere without giving attribution (because the attribution would have only been to yourself).  I was trying to be friendly at AnthonyLudwar's Talk page, but i messed up by not investigating more to see what happened more fully. --Doncram (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. This AFD is ready to be closed ("Keep", because there is no deletion reason proposed).  The fact that an improper move of material has happened doesn't matter.  Editors can choose to merge later/separately if they like. --Doncram (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a problem with the article in that it is primarily a list of institutions offering courses on the subject, not the actual history.  I can see how there might be a good article written on the subject, how the subject evolved in history into the current discipline, exploring the engineering aspects of Greek and Roman architecture and medieval cathedrals, the way challenges in architecture were tackled, look at works such as Brunelleschi's dome, Michelangelo's St. Peter's Basilica, the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, Joseph Paxton's Crytal Palace, to the modern day work of Frei Otto, Santiago Calatrava, Ove Arup, etc., and how the engineering of modern day structure has been improved by advances computing that resulted in more adventurous design. This however is not it, and I'm in two minds as to whether a WP:TNT might be the best approach. Hzh (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I've decided to start adding some content on the history with sources that should pass WP:GNG. Although it is still quite rudimentary, it can form the basis for further expansion into a decent article. Hzh (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:33, 2 December 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.