Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioenvironmental 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 keep. Wizardman 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bioenvironmental Engineering

Bioenvironmental Engineering (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Y4kk 13:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Should this article not be simply tagged for vast improvement? There's nothing here that's incorrect or inaccurate... it's just... nothing other than media. I'm voting a weak keep and encourage somebody to write some prose and outline whe the hell Bioenvironmental Engineering is. It's definitely an article worthy of note and deserving to be here, just obviously not in its present form. --linca^linca 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep No doubt this article needs some help. However, it appears to ba a description of a MOS. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. I see nothing strong to delete. Carlosguitar 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I also like WP:JUSTAVOTE as an appropriate response to the initial post. --linca^linca 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is an Air Force occupation. More detail needed! Jeremyabbott1980 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I can't imagine that every American military job description deserves a Wikipedia page - there are thousands of them. MarkBul 20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Information/History added on page. Jeremyabbott1980 23:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You already voted. Carlosguitar 20:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm now voting a strong keep (as a change from my weak stance) as the article now is detailed and summarises the subject mater. It needs a lot of work, but is now not simply a collection of images. Massive wikify needed, but definitely has enough content to stay for now. --linca^linca 07:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep as no reason for deletion has been presented. --Itub 11:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong speedy KEEP Why are why we talking about deleting a relevant article? Everybody should know this stuff! --Gp75motorsports 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. No reason for deletion.Biophys 23:31, 1 October 2007 (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.