Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mechanical and Aerospace 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 redirect to Mechanical engineering. Missvain (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't think this is a thing. Just because UCLA (the only source cited in the article) has a Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, doesn't make MAE a branch of engineering; just a combination of two existing ones. Fails WP:V and WP:N, and probably other things, too. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  08:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment for the record, a whole lot more than UCLA calls their departments the "department of" or "school of" "Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering", the name is actually ubiquitous in higher education. That aside, there is also the International Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering which is hosted by IEEE each year, with its 12th annual conference scheduled for June 2021. That conference has published, in book form, all previous eleven conferences, which is a very large amount of material. There may not be significant coverage in there, but it would be a project to really figure it out unless you are very knowledgeable in the field. From what I understand, the fields are somewhat intertwined. Whatever coverage of the topic exists, that is what the article should be about. There is nothing wrong with having the article just to state all I said above, so long as there is significant coverage in reliable sources. I am a physicist and not an engineer, so I will be reserving my !vote; I just wanted to point all this out. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Everything in this non-categorised, non-tagged stub is already covered in mechanical engineering and aerospace engineering. This does not need to exist. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think there is strong evidence that many people think of this as a single combined discipline, despite the separate existence and notability of mechanical engineering and aerospace engineering as established disciplines on their own: (1) the many academic departments with this name, (2) major academic conferences with this name, including the IEEE International Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering noted above but also the International Conference on Progress in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, and the Asia Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, (3) its listing as a discipline in the Times Higher Education rankings, (4) the identification of people as being mechanical and aerospace engineers in mainstream (tabloid) media such as The Sun, (5) the fact that Google tells me there are roughly 500,000 hits for the exact phrase "field of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering", (6) the existence of textbooks aimed at this field such as Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (Roman Fritz, Willford Press, 2016), (7) the existence of journals aimed at the field such as Mechanical and aerospace engineering (CRC Press, 2012–). The title should be lowercased but that's not a problem for AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Aerospace engineering already includes a good deal of mech e, not sure what is being talked about here besides a stock phrasing that happens to be used often. The article does not (nor do the sources cited here seem to) make any claim for how this field is separate from a combination of aerospace engineering and mechanical engineering, which both have articles. jp×g 12:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The subdivisions are individually notable, but people do think of them together and conjoin them for administrative and publishing purposes. I think the conjunction rises to the level of significance that it would be helpful if we explained it, and having a brief dedicated article makes more sense than, say, mirror-image text in the articles on both subfields. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 08:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Mechanical engineering. As this stands, it is no more than a dictionary definition. Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering is a longstanding redirect to Mechanical engineering, the lead of which explains that "It also overlaps with aerospace engineering, metallurgical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, manufacturing engineering, chemical engineering, industrial engineering, and other engineering disciplines to varying amounts." – wbm1058 (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Change to a redirect -- clearly insufficient sourced info on the nature of the hybrid field, apparently offered at one or more universities, to justify a separate article today. If this changes, then an article could be considered at a future time.  For now, best to chg to a REDIRECT, as is the sames as is done for Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect more like a dictionary entry at the moment - their are lots of subjects you could join adds nothing as an encyclopedic enry. Possibly it could be a valid subject in the future but not seeing it at the moment and a redirect would serve readers better. KylieTastic (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2020 (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.