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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ant Wilson

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability. The subject is a software engineer and founder of what looks like a non-notable company. The only source cited is a basic funding announcement, which doesn't establish anything on its own. There is nothing out there that gives in-depth, independent coverage. No sources that meet WP:GNG Junbeesh (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Junbeesh (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. I was considering nominating this and the two related articles for deletion myself when I saw them in NPP. – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. He does not rise above the noise in search results for his name. I can't find out anything about him besides that he founded the one company. FalconK (talk) 00:37, 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 delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Copplestone

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability. The subject is a software engineer and founder of what looks like a non-notable company. The only source cited is a basic funding announcement, which doesn't establish anything on its own. There is nothing out there that gives in-depth, independent coverage. No sources that meet WP:GNG. Junbeesh (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Junbeesh (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. I was considering nominating this and the two related articles for deletion myself when I saw them in NPP. – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - little to no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is almost nothing about this man in the article, so it's clearly not a biography.Blackballnz (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SERIESA. Literally everyone I know from New Zealand is a software developer. We are not here to promote anything about investments, nor act as a director of inventors and the companies that they founded. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Similar rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ant Wilson to which this article is related. Nothing is said about this guy anywhere. FalconK (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, non notable. Allblessed (talk) 14:13, 20 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tehran Monolingual Corpus

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

I can't verify that this dataset ever existed, let alone that it meets WP:GNG. No obvious associated academic paper, and I can't find a reference to it at the given external link or another link I found on a random GitHub repository. Suriname0 (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. Suriname0 (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this dataset ever existed, it doesn't appear to have ever been cited in research, nor does it appear to be accessible either directly from the compilers or in online corpora databases. -- LWG ^talk 18:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 18:09, 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. 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 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 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