Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-disciplinary 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-disciplinary Engineering

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable topic. Appears to be a slight restatement of systems engineering without significant sourcing justifying this as worth a separate entry. This article has been around for a couple of years without real improvement.

Recommend replacing with a simple redirect to Systems engineering.

214.4.238.180 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the nomination and support the redirect as a neologism. Ansh6 6 6 20:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merge and redirect to Systems engineering can be considered after AfD is closed. It should have been considered WP:BEFORE. I don't see any evidence on talk pages that it was. ~KvnG 00:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Multi-disciplinary Engineering" gets about 1,140 hits on GScholar and browsing the first few pages makes it clear that multi-disciplinary engineering is a topic in itself. There exist cirricula in multi-disciplinary engineering at some universities. It easily passes WP:GNG as having multiple reliable sources that go in depth about the concept. The article could use some improvement in sourcing and prose, but these are surmountable problems per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.