Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engineering Design and Developement

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Design and Developement

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

Non-notable specific academic course at specific school. Suggest merger to The Science Academy of South Texas. Woodshed (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 29 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct the spelling and redirect to Project Lead the Way. If the information in the article is reliably sourced (I can't tell), merge that information to both that article and The Science Academy of South Texas. When I looked at this AfD and article, I recognized Project Lead the Way as the name of a national curriculum. I discovered that an article about it had been PRODed some time ago, so I undeleted the old article, took it to my user space, and built it to the point of being a credible contribution with citations to independent sources. It turns out that "Engineering Design and Development" is the capstone course in this program's engineering sequence. Since Project Lead the Way is an academic program that enrolls the kinds of teenagers who are often included to contribute to Wikipedia (and sometimes contribute articles about their favorite classes), it's probably a good idea to keep a redirect to this course name. --Orlady (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to explicitly indicate the point (implicit in my comment) that I agree with the nominator that this particular school course is not independently notable. --Orlady (talk) 01:46, 9 February 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 01:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not redirect. Greglocock (talk) 01:25, 11 February 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this course (even with proper spelling) is individually notable. The term is too generic to justify a redirect. AllyD (talk) 08:59, 17 February 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.