Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrity 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 with consensus that the topic is to be merged, and the particulars of that merge will be carried out on the topic page. If that does not happen within a reasonable amount of time, the article can be renominated for AfD. – bradv  🍁  15:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Integrity engineering

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not appear to be a notable concept. Searching mostly finds websites of companies with similar names. The talk page note ("Contributions to this update are from the "Integrity Engineering" linkedin group, these suggestions and observations where thankfully recieved and have directly influenced this article.") makes me suspect this is largely WP:OR. Poorly sourced, tagged for two years with no improvement. It is conceivable an encyclopedic article could be written on this topic, but this isn't it, and would require at best WP:TNT. earwig shows extensive copying of text; it's hard to tell who copied from who, but given the general poor quality of this article, it doesn't seem worth the effort to figure out. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Well, the domain of Integrity engineering is mature enough to have specialties - it is applied to Non-Destructive Testing, Communications and Power, Pipeline Engineering, and Database Engineering among others. IE is a branch of Systems engineering, basically the side of it responsible for ensuring that systems work safely; it seems that this is mainly in domains involving hardware that didn't think they needed systems engineering in earlier decades, i.e. it is reinventing some wheels and applying ancient wisdom to new areas: 'twas ever thus. So, the domain is notable. I read through the article: William Hazlitt it ain't, but for engineer-speak it's actually not at all unreadable. And it's even got a list of reliable sources, not counting those I've listed here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to . They have similar scope, language, and sources and cover the overall topic of AIM. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge because of WP:OVERLAP. I understand thought that an argument for keeping the article could be made. There are few papers discussing Int Engineering in depth. But I would be more confident to lean towards "Keep" if these were review papers of academic books. Cinadon36 06:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I can see the direction of the wind here. I'd just note that a branch of engineering is not the same as a system intended to support that branch; and if one was designing an encyclopedia rationally, one would have an article on the branch, with perhaps a section or subsidiary article on systems to support it --- not the other way around. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't object to a merge in the other direction if that makes it more rational. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It would. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Admin question - Chiswick Chap and LizardJr8 - Sounds like a merge might work best here and as a closer, I'm curious, what article would you want me to suggest for the merge? Then Wikipedians can discuss it - decide on the merge on the proper talk pages. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep I agree that a merge is the best option, however I don’t think AFD is the proper forum to hash out the merge particulars. I suggest that this discussion be closed as a procedural keep, and a merge discussion following merge procedures be implemented. A merger notification should be placed on both articles so interested editors can participate. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, my view as stated above (if there isn't energy for a simple Keep) is for a reverse merge to here, i.e. Integrity engineering is the topic and Asset integrity management systems is a subsection of that. There is plainly scope for expansion and even subsidiary articles but we should start from there. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. LizardJr8 (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2021 (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.