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 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 00:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Korzeń

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

The article is virtually unsourced, as none of the references or links in it have any mention of the person (that I could find, and there's not a lot of text). Same goes for plwiki, where this was translated from. A Google search also brought back virtually nothing besides Wikipedia, Wikidata and Commons. A bunch of Polish pages mention the name, but I couldn't find any with info on this particular person, including any pages relating to the Polonia Restituta award. ☀ Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 11:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poor sourcing, and only win the second highest award. Bearian (talk) 02:16, 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 redirect‎ to Inductance#Mutual inductance or any other target. The consensus is fairly clear that the article should Not Be Here any more: I am going to make an editorial decision to pick one of the proposed targets; if anyone prefers one of the other ones, like Faraday's law of induction, Electromagnetic induction, or just transformer (or sections thereof like § Transformer emf or Electromagnetic induction § Electrical transformer) or even something not mentioned here, please feel free to address it through standard editorial processes (e.g., BRD, etc) or list it at RfD. I am declaring the exact target of redirects Not AfD's Problem, since there are other venues for that and there's not much discussing of it going on here any more anyway. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transformer effect

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

Mutual inductance and Inductive coupling already have much more information here. The transformer effect certainly is not the WP:COMMONNAME for this, either. DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Technology. DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Physics, Ldm1954 (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete - what are you suggesting should happen? Christian75 (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nom that the term is rarely used. It refers to the effect in which an emf is induced by a time-varying magnetic field. (see [1] and [2]). It is usually discussed in electrodynamics textbooks under the topic Faraday's law of induction. Given this, I propose that we merge to Faraday's law of induction, and create a redirect from the more common term, transformer emf, to that page. The coverage at the target article should also be expanded. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added discussion about transformer emf to Faraday's law of induction. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformer. There is nothing useful in this article to merge, it is high-school physics without sources. The name is not in common use, and I suspect is a literal translation from another language. It seems to have been created much earlier in WP history when the policy about what to include and verification was more open. I would also be OK with a simple delete, as a Google search mainly brings up pages on Transformer-syle robots. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformer, as there is not any brilliant prose or even cited content worth preserving via merge. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically, transformer seems like a wrong target. In those sources that care to define "transformer effect", e.g. this, it includes any effect from changing magnetic flux to a stationary circuit, similar to transformer emf. In particular, it includes the interaction between a circuit and a moving magnet, which is unrelated to what happens in a transformer. That's why I suggested Faraday's law of induction above. If we decide that it generally does not have a well-defined meaning, then we should delete it or link to Electromagnetic induction, which is the broadest article in the topic area. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with either of those as redirect destinations. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inductance#Mutual inductance, where Mutual induction also redirects. In 2006 the first sentence of the first version of this article read The Transformer Effect, or Mutual Induction, describes one of the processes by which an electromotive force (e.m.f.) is induced. So it was meant as an article on what we usually refer to as mutual induction. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Destinyokhiria 💬

12:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Mutual inductance: The original intent of the author of the WP article does not matter, especially when the assertion that "transformer effect" is synonymous with mutual induction is unsourced. It is more important how the term is used in the literature. L.V. Kite (1974) An introduction to linear electric circuits discusses mutual inductance and says The phenomenon we have discussed here is the is the transformer effect. It occurs in circuits which are fixed in position, and should not be confused with the related phenomenon known as the dynamo effect, which depends for its existence on relative motion. This does not yet tell us whether he considers transformer effect synonymous with mutual inductance or whether it is more general phenomenon. However, he also says later that self induction [...] is obviously an additional manifestation of transformer effect. Here's another source that considers self-inductance in connection with the transformer effect: [3]. This indicates that Mutual inductance is a narrower concept than the transformer effect. Anyway, this is such a niche term that I am not strongly opposed to Mutual inductance as a target if it helps closing the AfD, since mutual inductance does lead the reader to the general topic area. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:47, 6 July 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 00:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

H and H Engineering Construction, Inc.

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

Found during WP:JUN25; unsourced since creation in 2005. Searching for coverage brought up a couple of mentions of the company in newspaper image captions of picture of infrastructure projects the company was working on, but the rest is just announcements that it was bought out in 2022, financial statement disclosures, hiring notices, advertisements, and various other forms of non-significant coverage that fail the coverage tests of WP:NCORP. There was an "H & H Engineering" that went bankrupt in 1988 that seems to be something different and also not notable either. Hog Farm _Talk 00:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and California. Hog Farm _Talk 00:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose this is the one that got bought out in 2022 [4], but who knows. This appears to have been PROMO for the company... I don't see anything about them and the article is basically unsourced, only linked to their website. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article is completely unsourced, use of google search/google news seems to only results in articles not conveying notability or unrelated articles. Also reads like an advert/promotion for the company. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 07:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It exists; nothing more to say about it; no coverage anywhere. FalconK (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. The connection to rails is tenuous. Bearian (talk) 10:21, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newtonian material

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

One line definition that is a weak duplicate of content in Newtonian fluid (and other, related pages). Nominated for a PROD by Weirdguyz on June 19th which I seconded on the same day. PROD & PROD2 removed by A. B. without any explanation beyond the statement recommend AfD. Hence now we go to an AfD for a page that also fails WP:NOTDICT. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely redundant to Newtonian fluid and (more generally) Linear elasticity. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't verify the only source on the page, thus making it original research, and it appears to be a fork of at least one other article. I took some physics courses in college, and taught secondary school physics two years in a row, yet never once have seen this phrase. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - this stub says ”a material is said to be ‘Newtonian’ if it exhibits a linear relationship between stress and strain rate.”. Does a stress/strain relationship apply to fluids, Newtonian or not? Thanks. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bit off topic, but @A. B. to answer your question, see Newtonian fluid, Non-Newtonian fluid, Viscosity#Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids and a stack of other articles in a Search Ldm1954 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons articulated above: as written, this is a dictionary definition, but trying to fix it up into an encyclopedic article would just be making even more redundancies with existing articles. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:05, 26 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. I see support--but no consensus--for the view that the current content is unfit for mainspace, and that the article should be rewritten. The key question of whether the topic is notable has not been decisively answered here. We should remember that the ever-popular WP:TNT is an essay about rewriting an article on a notable topic. There is no support in policy for use of the Delete button as an editorial tool to fix poorly written prose. Editors are encouraged to remove unsourced or non-encyclopedic content, whittling the article down to a stub if necessary, or to discuss potential redirect or merge targets on the Talk page. Owen× ☎ 18:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM aided design

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. If this is notable, it needs WP:TNT ~~because it cannot be divorced from its creation by AI.~~ Wholly inappropriately sourced with unreliable sources, fails WP:V, which is a key tenet of Wikipedia. Previoulsy sent to draft with the rationale While not conclusively AI-generated, the writing style, structure, and tone are consistent with LLM-assisted authorship. It likely had human curation or editing layered on top of content produced or scaffolded by a large language model. Further, the references are almost all deprecated sources. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent author @Manvi jha13 came onto IRC Live Chat asking for assistance with this. They've repeated the article was not created with AI: they state they are pursuing a PHD in this topic so wrote the draft as an academic essay instead of an Wikipedia article. Have given guidance, and assuming good faith. qcne (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QcneThank you so much for your message.

@Timtrent, thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft and for providing your feedback — I sincerely appreciate your efforts.

It is rather intriguing to see the draft being marked as AI-generated again. I have stated in my talk page for the article and would like the opportunity to clarify again that no content of the given page has been generated by AI. The AI tools have been used for vocabulary suggestion, but in no case for text generation. I believe that given the academic use and exploration of the topic, along with the fact that I am a PhD student mostly engaged in academic writing, gives the article a similar tone, which I have tried to improve since your suggestions. Please do let me know if there are any additional areas/sections/perspectives you would suggest for me to improve on.

Additionally, I have noticied that you have reservations regarding the citations? I believe all the citations are academic publications. Please let me know if and how I can improve them.

Thank you,

Manvi Manvi jha13 (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, in reference to your claim on Talk:LLM aided design that "The use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement", could you please disclose in full detail the extent to which you used an LLM to generate the article, including the content, section headings, references, and formatting? Additionally, could you please disclose the name and versions of the AI tool(s) that you have been using to edit Wikipedia, as well as whether you are using those tools to author your comments in discussions like this one? — Newslinger talk 20:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Newslinger

When I state that "the use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement," I am referring specifically to minor assistance such as suggesting synonyms or checking for spelling and grammatical errors (ChatGPT-4o). Importantly, no AI tools were used to draft or generate any content or contextual material.

Additionally, I want to clarify that AI was never used in drafting or contributing to any discussions or comments. I reaffirm that at no point was AI employed to generate new text or ideas, thereby eliminating any concern regarding hallucinations or the reliability of the content. Manvi jha13 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, you made the edit Special:Diff/1296403283 to the article within the last hour. How did you generate the references and the citation code that you added into the article? — Newslinger talk 20:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean generate references? They are the papers I have read, most of them are initailly made available on Arxiv and later published via conferences or journals. Why would it be difficult to find them?

As for citiation code, it is a rather starightforward format one can write it themselves, in any case to simplyfy my work, I wrote a small python script that takes bibtex format citaion and converts to wikipedia style. This helps reduce manual effort, and ensures consistency. I’ve made sure all included sources are verifiable and meet the reliability standards expected here. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger, My apologies, I missed to ping you in my response, please refer to my reply above. Thank you in advance. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the citation code were generated with a Python script, it's not clear why the code would use plaintext instead of normalized citation templates such as {{Cite journal}}, or why it would mix wikitext formatting with Markdown formatting (which is not used by Wikipedia).

This article exhibits too many characteristics of LLM-generated content to remain in article space. I am unconvinced that "The use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement" when the the very first revision (Special:Permalink/1294545580) already shows heavy signs of being LLM-generated, including the excessive use of lists and the idiosyncratic use of title case that are associated with AI chatbots. Draftify, and the draft should not be moved back into article space without going through the Articles for creation (AfC) process. — Newslinger talk 21:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your feedback. I don't understand why a python script would be limited to citation template, it would be able to take input and produce results based on how I program it. So I respectfully but completely disagree with this claim of yours.

Additionally, as I already stated, the use of ChatGPT was restricted to the use for checking grammar and spelling errors. To highlight the procedure goes like- I write a draft -> I pass it to ChatGPT with a prompt asking to fix any spelling or grammatical errors in the given text and just use that. This procedure in no way known to me generates new text. Additionally, in order to clarify again, this is the topic I am working on for PhD, the academic tone and style (including the usage of lists and detailed descriptions) is thus a result of the same Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the version of your draft before you processed it with ChatGPT? — Newslinger talk 21:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your question.

I would not have the article as a whole but yes I can get all the paragraphs I processed through the ChatGPT history. Would you like samples or screenshots (or other methods you deem satisfactory for proving, since that is what we are doing here)?

Honestly it is a bit intriguing to see how intolerant the Wikipedia community is of the academic community and their writing style. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide the pre-ChatGPT content in text form on the article talk page, Talk:LLM aided design, that would help establish that the article is not LLM-generated and also help editors improve the article by having your original writing available to reference.

The Wikipedia community appreciates the academic community in general, but many Wikipedians have a negative view of LLM-generated content. On Wikipedia, articles are expected to conform to the Manual of Style, and LLM-generated articles almost always deviate from the style guidelines in much more distinct ways than the average new editor would.

To clarify my previous comment, I did not say that a Python script would be limited to generating citation templates, although I do find it unusual that your script converts citations to "wikipedia style" by partially outputting Markdown instead of using a normalized citation template format. — Newslinger talk 22:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your feedback.

Sure I can add pre-ChatGPT text for reference, just to clarify, do you expect the entire article or a few paragraphs would be enough?

Additionally for the python script, I do not use any libraries, my script simply takes the BibTex(easier to extract from), extracts details like paper name, author name etc.. and simply arranged them in a template I give. The template is the one I found to be the best fit for my scenario, it can be heavily varying from the general trend but I don't think that should be an issue? Manvi jha13 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are able to post the entire pre-ChatGPT article, that would be preferred as it would be most helpful to all interested editors. For your citation script, I highly recommend revising your script template to use Wikipedia's Citation Style 1 templates to ensure that it consistently meets Wikipedia's citation style guidelines. — Newslinger talk 22:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Newslinger

I have added a sample in the talk section of the article. Please refer to it for context. I decided not to include the entire article, as I did not want to create a lengthy and potentially cluttered post there. However, if you still have any reservations about the use of AI in the article based on the example provided, please let me know.

Additionally, I found the article WP:CHATGPT, which clearly states that using AI to refine text is acceptable, as long as the content does not involve hallucinations, inaccuracies, or unverifiable claims. Given that the text in this article has been thoroughly reviewed and all sources are properly cited, I would like to ask if you have identified any instances where this might have been an issue? Manvi jha13 (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, don't worry about your disclosures resulting in a "lengthy and potentially cluttered post", as the content you post on Talk:LLM aided design will certainly be within Wikipedia's page size limit. You can organize your content by wrapping any section(s) of it between the {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} templates to prevent any clutter. It shouldn't take long to post the entire pre-ChatGPT article, as you have already indicated that you have access to your ChatGPT logs. I'm requesting the disclosure of the entire pre-ChatGPT article because the information provided so far, frankly, does not convince me that the article is not LLM-generated. There are multiple paragraphs within the article body that lack inline citations, which is a serious concern with respect to WP:CHATGPT § Risks and relevant policies. — Newslinger talk 21:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Qcne. I think that must be interpreted as Manvi jha13's opinion that it should be kept. This does not address the lack of WP:V in the nomination. I will accept their assurance about AI generation in good faith and strike that part of the nomination. It has now been drafified twice, which is one more time than DRAFTOBJECT allows. I do not feel it may be returned to draft space without a full consensus under these circumstaces, crcumstances whcih we would not be in without unilateral moves to mainspace (allowed, but unwise in this case). It may, however, be spared that via WP:HEY. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I have no objection to consensus based draftification, though I would prefer an assurance that, if sent back to draft, the creating editor will submit for review and work with the outcome of that review and any further iteration. That might be a closure condition, in an ideal world. [[If WP:HEY has happened pre closure then it shoul dbe retained. If I am notified I will consider withdrawal. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Engineering, and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent

Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback and suggestions. I have revised the article accordingly. The updated version no longer includes arXiv or other non–peer-reviewed sources. I hope these changes help improve the article's quality and bring it closer to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and reliability. Manvi jha13 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: is the best option. Unfortunately, it's nearly entirely sourced to arXiv articles, which are not reliable sources. Pre-prints, meaning they've not been peer-reviewed yet. Once they get published, they would have to then show reliable sourcing. This article is also perhaps a bit too technical for a general audience. Needs a rewrite and better sourcing at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
or let it incubate offline and submit it for the AfC review. This wouldn't pass as is anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article should be improved, then in the longer term merged with AI-driven design automation. This is another new page, with a more general overview (not all AIs are LLMs). Both pages have issues, but the topic is surely worth keeping. LouScheffer (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LouScheffer,

Thank you so much for your valuable review. I would greatly appreciate your guidance or suggestions on how the article could be improved.

While AI-driven design automation does involve hardware design, it is fundamentally different from LLM-aided design. AI-driven automation typically refers to techniques like MLIR or the use of Bayesian optimization and supervised/unsupervised/reinforcement learning to improve stages of the design process. However, its scope is generally limited to optimization rather than generation.

In contrast, LLM-aided design focuses on the ability to generate descriptions, code, and even complete designs from natural language input; something beyond the capabilities of traditional AI-driven automation. This distinction, I believe, is key to understanding the scope and novelty of LLM-aided approaches. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TNT Are sure this entire article is not LLM generated? It has a weird, unencyclopedic promotional tone. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (with no shade intended to User:Manvi jha13): I am interested in the assertion, "The AI tools have been used for vocabulary suggestion, but in no case for text generation." Vocabulary is part of text, and suggesting it entails generation, does it not? I am interested because part of my day job is to teach writing courses, and I often hear from students things like, "I didn't use AI. I only used <LLM-based app> to <do writing-related thing>." Again, with no shade to Manvi jha13, it seems to me that the definitions of terms such as AI, LLM, and generate are currently unsettled. This is something that might eventually be mentioned in this or a similar article (though, of course, only after it has been discussed in reliable secondary sources). Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cnilep

Thank you so much for your feedback and interest in the topic. I'd like to offer some insights based on my understanding and research into LLMs so far.

To the best of my understanding, it would be considered "text generation" in the context of Wikipedia if the entire article or part of it were artificially created, which could potentially lead to false information or hallucinations (a known risk even with the latest LLMs). However, when the use of an LLM is solely for refinement purposes- such as improving grammar, suggesting synonyms, or rephrasing sentences- it's comparable to using a thesaurus tool or the inbuilt features in MS Word/Grammarly that flag grammatical issues and suggest more suitable word choices. In my view, this does not lead to the generation of entirely new or potentially inaccurate information.

Many people are opting for AI tools over MS Word or Grammarly because they can save a lot of time in the writing process. However, after reflecting on the depth of the discussion on this page, I'm starting to wonder if that time saved is worth it! Manvi jha13 (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd stick to the old-fashioned stuff, Manvi jha13. It doesn't take a lot more time and using it develops writing and vocabulary skills. Old-fashioned tools like thesauruses, Grammarly and your brain are much more reliable.

Wikipedia editors are becoming increasingly wary of any LLM material being used on Wikipedia since it's still unreliable. Of particular concern for us, LLMs tasked with generating an article will produce an impeccably formatted list of footnoted references which turn out to be either inapplicable or just plain made up; that's the kiss of death for Wikipedia's reliability. So if someone senses you're using LLMs, it develops trust issues. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I checked all the article's references and verified that almost all existed (one or two links didn't work for me). All were at least somewhat relevant (I am not an AI expert so "somewhat" was as close as I could figure). All but the several non-peer reviewed refs already discussed above came from very reputable sources such as the IEEE and the ACM. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. I'm no AI expert so I can't say for sure but I suspect we've got a really good article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete. The article requires major revision, bordering on a total rewrite, to be an encyclopedia article. There are footnotes, yes, but as far as I can tell they are serving in lieu, or redundantly in addition to wikilinks (MOS:INTERNAL). Every single footnote I've been able to review is in the form of <thing>[ref to paper that introduced the thing]. This would be easily corrected by replacing them with wikilinks, but it means that the article does not have any references as we use them on Wikipedia, as a foundation on which the article is Wikipedia:Based upon. The fact that the papers cited are the original papers that introduced the things referred to means that they are for the most part going to be WP:PRIMARY literature, and non-independent. All of the analytic or evaluative content of the article are original research, or at least as they would be as far as we would be able to tell (if there are sources they are based from, the author has not cited many of them). This should not be resubmitted without the issues identified being addressed. Alternatively, this can be submitted to a different project that does accept original theories and conclusions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on discussion and review of the references, WP:V is not delete-level concern – yes, I agree more sources should be added. LLM-aided design is also a notable topic has has relevance to many fields, including biology where I have some experience. Kashyp et al (2025), Peng et al (2024). The editor is quite open to feedback and specific feedback can be given for further improvement if necessary. Overall, it's an useful contribution for an encyclopedia. WeWake (talk) 23:35, 2 July 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 [5], [6], [7]. 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: [8] [9]. 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.

Engineering Redirects for Discussion

Engineering proposed deletions