Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mud engineer

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. SpinningSpark 17:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mud engineer[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article contains no references to the topic, only what appears to be personal experience or opinion, and has never done so since its creation more than 10 years ago. The only citation is to an online glossary for Bentonite, which says nothing about mud engineers. It appears as a subtopic on another page Drilling_fluid#Mud_engineer which is itself unsatisfactory with no citations, but would be an appropriate place for it. The term is actually used in the industry (and I have met mud engineers), but without any source of what the job is after so much time, there is no justification for this page. Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Chemical Engineer: For future nominations, please fully follow the steps at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 15:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of books about drilling and the relating engineering required to do this well. And the article lists a few. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to Redirect @Andrew Davidson:The term Mud Engineer on the Drilling_fluid page Drilling_fluid#Mud_engineer can be improved and spun off to a new page if it warrants it. Deletion of the unsourced material on this page will not remove the term from Wikipedia. However, it will remove what seems personal observations which have persisted too long. Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google search shows that this is a notable topic. I have added a suitable reference. However the article suffers from an absence of references. If suitable references are not imminently forthcoming, the whole article should be gutted down to a stub. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Axl and Andrew D. The problem with retrospectively sourcing the article is simply that it's difficult to know where to start. But yeah, WP:NOTCLEANUP. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is potentially a notable topic, but would be more than adequately covered by the already existing section in Drilling_fluid#Mud_engineer, for which the single web page citation would be at least some direct reference. Making this page a redirect would allow the subsection to be developed until it is worth spinning off. It would be more appropriate for a wikipedia search for "Mud Engineer" to bring you to the section on drilling fluids rather than an unsubstantiated POV stand-alone. Note that books on drilling mud do not necessarily describe the job of a mud engineer any more than chemistry books describe the job of a chemist. Suggested references would be better on the Drilling_fluid page where I think the topic of mud engineer should be first developed, which page is also mostly personal descriptions lacking proper attributions, and where work should be done. Keeping mud engineer within this context would provide the necessary information about drilling mud without repeating it on this page.Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially unsourced. The Schlumberger glossary entry just talks about bentonite without even mentioning the term Mud engineer. I don't consider the Career Trend source to be a WP:RS. Don't redirect to Drilling_fluid#Mud_engineer because that's totally unsourced as well. If somebody wants to start from scratch and write a properly sourced article about this, that's fine, but this isn't it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. There are entire books on this subject. All the other problems are WP:SOFIXIT. Stubification would take all of about five minutes and would remove any original research just as effectively as redirection. James500 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 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.