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 Sanitary engineering. Sandstein 08:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Public health engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I proposed this article for deletion, but the PROD was removed by a different editor with no explanation so I am bringing it to AfD. Article lacks any assertion of notability for minor differences in terminology or goals in India, and no sources have been provided for the topic in general. India-specific terms could possibly be added to the established sanitary engineering article. See also Talk:Sanitary engineering, regarding a merge proposal on which nobody has acted for 30 days. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources are readily available. A selection follows. Andrew D. (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Water-Supply and Public Health Engineering
2. Public Health Engineering: A Textbook of the Principles of Environmental Sanitation
3. Public Health Engineering Practice
4. Elements of Public Health Engineering
5. The Public Health Engineer
6. Practical Public Health Engineering
7. The Society of Public Health Engineers
8. Introduction to Public Health Engineering in Humanitarian Contexts

Comment - Hijiri 88 below has some accusations about this voter's motivations, but regardless of motivations, this list of 8 "sources" is nothing but a collection of book and magazine titles (plus one college course at #8) found with a Google search on the term <<public health engineering>>. In an AfD vote, mentioning a source requires some discussion of how that source would actually improve the article, and all we have here is a little evidence that the article's title is also a term that can be found somewhere online. Meanwhile, this vote ignores the fact that the article under discussion attempts to be specific to India. If any of these listed works mention that country, perhaps someone can enlighten us with the relevant page numbers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• TNT delete Essentially an unsourced, one-sentence garbage sub-stub that serves no purpose to our readers. I don't have an opinion on whether this topic is independently noteworthy or could be the topic of a decent article, but it's clear that Andrew Davidson doesn't either and has not read any of the above sources he found by Googling up the title of this article (see the similar cite-bombs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suppression of dissent and less obviously Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist rhetoric).

As a related aside, Andrew's unexplained blanking of the PROD was disruptive, and at this point he should probably be banned from removing PRODs without explanation, if not removing PRODs altogether, or even article deletion in general. For one thing, it's impossible to counter the argument he's definitely going to make at the AFD if he hasn't made it in his PROD revert, and it seems like he never allows that, with the specific intention of showing up and making a bogus counter-policy argument at AFD that could have been shot down pre-emptively if he'd also made it in an edit summary when reverting the PROD.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also this carefully disguised canvassing with misleading/irrelevant edit summary and section title. It appears to have misfired as (per below) Deryck didn't !vote as apparently intended. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to sanitary engineering or disambiguate with Public Health Engineering Department, Public Health Engineering Department (Sikkim), and Orissa Public Health Engineering Organisation. Industry articles like this Arup article uses "public health engineering" in a way largely synonymous with what sanitary engineering is about. Yes I agree this topic is notable but I think it's substantially the same as "sanitary engineering". I think we will better serve our readers by writing one unified article about them. Deryck C. 09:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep but needs an overhaul. Not sure if deleting is the way to go in this case, but I'm open to comments. Handoto (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to sanitary engineering. An article specific to India should not be at this title. Inasmuch as the article says anything beyond what is in sanitary engineering, it is only the unsurprising fact that India has such departments. The claim that the two terms are not synonymous is neither explained nor supported. SpinningSpark 17:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have tried to make changes that makes it a little better article. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to sanitary engineering per others. No good reason for this stub to exist by itself since same activities are already covered by the "sanitary engineering" article and it is highly unlikely that this stub will ever have enough material to expand. Also, any vote by "Andrew D." should be ignored/stricken down, per Hijiri88's comments (unreasonable removal of PROD, very obvious canvassing to try and save the article).Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Deryck. Concur in entirety.Also echo Hijri.∯WBG^converse 09:11, 1 October 2018 (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.