Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Engineering

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Engineering. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Engineering|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Engineering. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from May 2019) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Engineering/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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 delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JSM Group

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BEFORE didn't turn up sufficient decent sources so as to meet WP:NCORP. Plenty of passing mentions and WP:ORGTRIV but nothing substantial. Company recently won an award for non-intrusive cable extraction, but I don't think that on its own is sufficient. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and United Kingdom. SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Hi I'm Sailing427, but you can call me Sailing. Look at my profile. (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing indicating this is notable and it looks like it was put here only to raise the company's profile. FalconK (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP, also unable to find anything via ProQuest. S0091 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2025 (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.

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. Participants are encouraged to try and rebuild the article based on what they think the best three is. If there is still no consensus after the attempt, we can revisit this after a few months. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FuelTech

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

I couldn't find real WP:SIGCOV for this, excluding press releases, copies of press releases on industry websites, and one promotional interview. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Technology, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:TNT. "After dominating..." "pioneered..." The rest reads like a company brochure. Moving to draft could be an WP:ATD but I cannot find anything meeting WP:CORPDEPTH so not sure if it can be fixed. Would also suggest a merge with Anderson Dick but that looks like a mess and possibly not notable either. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per [1], [2], [3]. The company is well-known in the automotive preparation sector. Svartner (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Svartner - big in racing and gets coverage for its technology. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the three references presented by Svartner is that they all fail WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, does appear like depth might be of concern, but from my review is does barely pass towards keep, and generally when we can avoid a delete that is close to call I think it is fair to keep it. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 04:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Engineering and Technology

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

Does not look to be a notable institution. Barely any in-depth coverage on the same. Most of it seems to be trivial mention or paid PR Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep this is a public university with over 1000+ students and there is some coverage of it in various sources: [4] [5]. It is not extensive but probably enough for an University. --hroest 15:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:56, 23 June 2025 (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.

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Hedengren

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

Sourced entirely to academic/scholarly databases, organizations, and articles, some of which do not seem independent of subject. Not enough significant coverage shown in secondary sources. His daughter Jane seems to be far more notable. Would appreciate input of editors that specialize in academia. Furthermore, User:OptimiserPrime appears to have a conflict of interest with a similar article James B. Rawlings and perhaps Hedengren as well. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did find this source but one alone is not enough. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Texas, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Nominator does not address most relevant SNG of WP:NPROF. And COI by itself is not a reason for deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a field I know, so I am assuming that having one academic paper with over 400 cites and another with over 200 (plus others with fewer cites) is significant for his field. From the sources I read he is "somebody" in his field, based on professional activities and the fact that he runs a research group at BYU. Lamona (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professor (Full) at BYU, an R1 research institute, and winner of the John R. Ragazzini Award is enough to satisfy WP:NPROF which is the relevant deletion criterion. (The athletic section might also be relevant under a different notability subject? I don't know, but a HOF at an NCAA Div I might be enough there too?). In any case, whether his daughter is or isn't also notable is irrelevant here. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. His citation record is in the range of passing WP:NPROF but with 27 in a field that is a medium to high citation field and thus not a clear cut case for NPROF#1 but together with the award the could pass per NPROF#2. However I also agree that the nomination should have performed an analysis per WP:NPROF. --hroest 14:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation record would only be enough for a weak keep for me but the Ragazzini Award pushes it over to a full keep. It's an award for educators rather than for researchers, but a major one from a notable society; I think those should count for WP:PROF#C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2025 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkiya Engineering College, Ambedkar Nagar

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

Relies primary on sources that are not independent or reliable. No third party in-depth coverage on the subject Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Education. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 7 June 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 23:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkiya Engineering College, Azamgarh

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

No in-depth coverage. Relies solely on primary sources. Also lacks WP:ORGDEPTH when I did a search Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why the page needs to be deleted. The college is the only engineering college in Azamgarh run by government

dear wikipedia editors I request you, not to delete the article as it is important for people concerned with the college Nilambhan (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good enough reason to keep the article Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Destinyokhiria (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, and virtually no coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NORG. LKBT (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything that would come even close to establishing notability per WP:ORG. As it stands, the article is basically just an online brochure for the college, and that's not what Wikipedia is here for. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2025 (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.

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James B. Rawlings

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

Same reason that I nominated John D. Hedengren for deletion. Entirely sourced to academic databases or organizations, and not enough independent secondary sources shown. Also, User:OptimiserPrime seems to have an apparent conflict of interest with the subject (and perhaps Hedengren as well) based on the user's edit summaries. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion because of an incorrect deletion rationale and not properly understanding Wikipedia policy pertaining to the notability of academics. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - subject meets WP:NPROF C1 - has some very highly cited works, h-index of 80, WP:NPROF C3 via IEEE fellowship, and WP:NPROF C5 via named chair. Zzz plant (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:SK3. His named professorships (Paul A. Elfers Chair and later Mellichamp Process Control Chair) each pass WP:PROF#C5, his society fellowships (AIChE, IFAC, and IEEE) each pass #C3 (and in fact IEEE Fellow is listed in WP:PROF as a prototypical example of something that passes #C3), his other awards make a plausible case for #C2, and his massive citation counts (one publication with a 5-digit count, h-index 80) give him a clear pass of #C1. The nomination rationale is totally erroneous: it doesn't even consider WP:PROF notability, which does not rely on the existence of secondary sourcing and does not require sources to be independent. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't specialize in academia but article creator has a likely COI with the article subject. I'm happy to withdraw my deletion nomination if Wikipedia policy for academics deems him notable.

I always thought Wikipedia needed to reference secondary, independent sources from the media (which is what we do for athletics). Was unaware that scientific journals and organizations counted, especially if they have a direct tie to the article's subject. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KnowledgeIsPower9281, athletics is covered in the daily news. Academic contributions are not. WP:NPROF gives the reliable sources that verify significant contributions to their fields. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Has held named chairs at two top-tier public research universities. Member of the National Academy of Engineering. Please refer to WP:PROF. Jahaza (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, California, Texas, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:NPROF, per h-index of 80 which makes him pass NPROF#1 without question, the Aiche awards as well as the hall of fame award per David Eppstein. Clearly the nominator is not familiar with WP:NPROF and the guidelines in this field. --hroest 13:55, 11 June 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 14:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tahzeeb Hafi

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

Not a notable poet, writer, and engineer. Fails Wp:GNG.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 12:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 12:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mostly featured only on Native Poetry sites, and social Media sites, have yet to find SIGCOV for the subject, has potential though given his growing following in the social media space, Ok with Draftify as an ATD to have the subject be more notable over time .Lorraine Crane (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2025 (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.

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. Except for Benyamin21, who is a WP:SPA and seems to have a conflict of interest in the topic, editors agree that there are not enough accessible reliable sources to establish the topic's notability. Sandstein 11:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetically enhanced Physical Vapor Deposition

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

Page that describes (advertises) a not notable product by a company, used for Physical vapor deposition. The technique is standard, with a decent general page already at Low-energy plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition, which is what the page was redirected to -- this company did not invent it and their technology is not special. An editor who is presumably not aware of the science/technology recreated the page. Going to AfD rather than an edit war. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Science, and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Both the page (in its original and current version) as well as the companies web page fails to describe the method. The page has one reference to magnetron deposition in [5], which indicates that a standard plasma deposition method is used. There must be a plasma, as electromagnetic fields of course do not have any effect on neutral atoms. Both the original and current version are from a technical viewpoint at best a bit misleading. (Admittedly the reverting editor has probably never done thin film deposition work.) Ldm1954 (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking in independent sources that describe the process. This just seems to be a trademarked name of what may or may not be low-energy plasma enhanced CVD. Difficult to verify anything given the process's proprietary nature. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere are independent coverages which helps establish the technology’s notability and neutral evaluation. For example, an article in The Globe and Mail provides coverage from a widely respected national newspaper and discusses Canadian defense technology and its international impact. Similarly, a piece on Global Defence Technology via NRIDigital offers an industry perspective that includes technical comparisons with traditional chrome plating—this demonstrates that the discussion of EPVD is carried out by independent experts rather than serving as self‐promotion.

Additional third‑party analysis is available from and Security, which supports the claims made in the article by providing market context and independent observations. Moreover, coverage by Shephard Media further reinforces the technology’s relevance by detailing how innovations like EPVD can enhance the longevity and precision of weapons systems. Beyond media coverage, government validation also substantiates EPVD’s impact. For instance, a SERDP/ESTCP fact sheetsupports this by offering government-backed details of the technology’s performance and significance. In addition, a contract listing on [6] shows that public sector interest and evaluations have been directed toward EPVD, addressing concerns about promotional bias through independent evidence.

Lastly, EPVD is clearly differentiated from other deposition methods such as low‑energy plasma‑enhanced chemical vapor deposition. In the wake of the EU’s ban on chrome plating, an analysis by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)indicates that EPVD has become a viable alternative to chrome plating.

Pointing that, I believe this article is neutral, independently verified and not an advertisement—and should remain active on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyamin21 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about the sources:

Is the discussion at The Globe and Mail in-depth? How many words are there about EPVD?
Global Defence Technology via NRIDigital is an interview of the CEO of Paradigm Shift Technologies, so much of it is not independent.
"and Security" link does not work.
Shephard Media is behind the paywall, but also seems like an interview of the CEO. How much information is there about the process?
The fact sheet does contain a short description of the process
contract listing is another 404
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) link takes me to some login page with no information about the process

84.251.164.143 (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. yes, at least 5 times

2. It is an interview by an independent news agency, not a self-published article

3. https://defenceandsecurity.ca/media/article&id=1013&t=m

4. The fact it is behind a paywall of a world-renowned publication proves that it is not a self-promoting or self-published article. It describes the process in detail

5. Yes, the fact sheet is on the official website of the US government and it clearly states the objective, description and benefits of EPVD technology.

6. https://www.highergov.com/contract/N6833520C0013/

This contract was awarded and the US NAVY clearly sites that this technology is an alternative to chrome plating for gun barrels.

7. ECHA has validated EPVD as an environmentally friendly commercially available viable alternative to chrome plating- their website requires cookies.

The primary distinction between Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) and Enhanced Physical Vapor Deposition (EPVD) lies in their application capabilities. PVD is limited to coating external surfaces and operates as a line-of-sight process, meaning it cannot effectively coat the interior of complex geometries, such as tubes or barrels with significant diameter-to-length ratios. In contrast, EPVD was specifically developed to address this limitation, enabling the application of coatings on the interior surfaces of tubes and barrels, even those with challenging geometries. This makes EPVD suited for applications where internal surface coatings are required, which PVD alone cannot achieve. Benyamin21 (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For now, there do not seem to be enough sources to write an article about the EPVD process (We don't really know what separates it from other PVD processes). As a product, I don't see that it would fulfill the strict requirements of WP:NPRODUCT either ("sustained coverage in reliable independent secondary sources"). Would the company be notable? 84.251.164.143 (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fristly, yes, the company would be notable. Secondly, the distinction between Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) and Enhanced Physical Vapor Deposition (EPVD) lies in their application capabilities. PVD is limited to coating external surfaces and operates as a line-of-sight process, meaning it cannot effectively coat the interior of complex geometries, such as tubes or barrels with significant diameter-to-length ratios. In contrast, EPVD was specifically developed to address this limitation, enabling the application of coatings on the interior surfaces of tubes and barrels, even those with challenging geometries. This makes EPVD suited for applications where internal surface coatings are required, which PVD alone cannot achieve. Benyamin21 (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps there are adequate sources for an article about the company, and this info can be part of it? ScienceFlyer (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not see any evidence being provided above that is a justification for retaining this article. The author, Benyamin21 has defended it as having assorted coverage. However, very little is independent or major. For instance quoting a SBIR grant page as evidence that the US Navy verifies the technique is inappropriate.

Most critical, none of the sources or the text describe what the technique is. The use of magnetic fields in thin film deposition is routine, see for instance here. The claim that this approach coats surfaces that PVD cannot reach is 100% original research as there is no attempt to provide any verification, it fails WP:Proveit as several editors have noted above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unverified claims are not permitted, this is perhaps the most established rule of Wikipedia.

Ldm1954 (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The EPVD® process is a patented and proprietary technology, which is why detailed descriptions are not publicly posted, unless you search for the patents, which are public. This confidentiality is standard for innovative technologies in competitive industries like defense and coatings. Similar to Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) , which is widely known by its trade name Teflon® and whose production details remain proprietary, EPVD® has been independently validated and recognized for its unique capabilities that set it apart from all other PVD type coatings.

Unlike traditional PVD, which is limited to EXTERNAL surfaces, EPVD® enables coatings on INTERNAL surfaces of complex geometries, such as gun barrels, which PVD cannot achieve. This distinction is critical for defense applications and has been validated by credible sources, including the SERDP/ESTCP Fact Sheet and the U.S. Navy contract. Additionally, EPVD® was awarded one of the "Top Cutting Edge Coating Solutions in 2025" by Aerospace & Defense Review 1, demonstrating its industry impact and innovation. Benyamin21 (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you'll note that there is no article for Teflon on wikipedia, as it redirects to PTFE as the process for making such polymers is well studied and not proprietary and unverifiable. This process has the same problem --- it's not verifiable beyond its existence as some form of physical vapor deposition with a trademark. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think Benyamin21 makes a convincing case here that sufficient published sources do not in fact exist for us to write a Wikipedia article. (Patents, for example, typically do not have sufficient suitable content.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:12, 14 June 2025 (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.

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. requested sourcing did not eventuate Star Mississippi 16:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaoul Sassoon

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

Article appears to be a BLP failing WP:GNG, lacking significant coverage. The sources listed are primary (1-7) or passing (8). A pretty substantial search turned up nothing covering this individual. Garsh (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, Engineering, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources which i provided are this man's own interviews. and its very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a problem though, interviews are primary sources and do not show notability. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 11:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I do then. This article is very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq under Saddam Hussein Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I quickly found this article in Israel's newspaper of record. It's about Sassoon and about the organization that interviewed him. Haven't made up my mind yet. gidonb (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be more about the organization that interviewed Sassoon and Saddam's regime, not necessarily Sassoon himself. I'm not sure that a two paragraph mention in an article about a related topic counts as significant coverage. Garsh (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a beginning. If others want to continue the search, they can! gidonb (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Shaoul Sassoon mentioned is Zionist, who is son of Iraq's Grand Rabbi Sassoon Khadouri. not Engineer Shaul Sasoon Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Shaul Sassoon is different from this one on whom the article is about Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked some more and did not find enough for the GNG. The domain is not well-covered, so with regret. gidonb (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are news some sources such as Baghdad Observer and al-Watan.com, these are website sources and remaining are interviews in four parts (four refs can be interview themselves and two parts of interview is mentioned in a website separately Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if you want this article to be kept, please indicate Keep in bold font so it doesn't get overlooked. Also a source review would be very helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand. Can you pls explain me what you meant to say Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i believe the article should be kept, even thou its not currently at its best, it is good in expanding on reconigtion of iraqi jews during the 70s-2003, when jews are overshadowed in iraqi history. Local Mandaean (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails WP:GNG. Skitash (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's failing WP:GNG and lacking significant coverage. Cinder painter (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is important with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It gives an important information that just like Christians and Mandaeans, Jews were also a part of Saddam Hussein's government. Unlike the propaganda narrative spread by Israel on anti-Zionist leaders, whom they equate with total antisemitism. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, this shouldn't get resolved by whom someone likes (whether the subject or Saddam), or by whom we dislike. We regularly delete bios of wonderful people and keep these of villains, value free. gidonb (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last chance for the keep !voters to provide sources in support of their arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2025 (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.

Engineering Redirects for Discussion

Engineering proposed deletions