Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Engineering

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 14:36, 13 July 2025 (Archiving closed XfDs (errors?): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformer effect). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
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. ✗plicit 14:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nano-I-beam

Nano-I-beam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

COI page where the only on-topic source (DOI:10.1038/s41598-019-53588-2) is the originators own paper which has 10 citations since 2019 according to GS. None of the other sources are on topic, and most of the page is either on standard nanotubes or macroscopic beams (some careful reading is needed). This type of advertising of an editor's own work is not what Wikipedia is for. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is very carefully disguised puffery of a single paper (Elmoselhy 2019), which has been cited all of twice by PubMed-indexed journals (Google Scholar's higher number isn't surprising, they index all kinds of junk). The other references cited are all about other topics, such as structural I-beams used in construction, all trying to inflate the importance of this one rather obscure research article. I have no patience for this kind of thing. If there's ever a comprehensive review article on nano I-beams, maybe we can have an article. But until then, WP isn't for boosting one's CV. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: From the article the following sources (given the number they have in the article as proposed for deletion) - 1 (can be fully accessed with the wikilibrary), 4, 9, and 10.
    Of these neither 9 nor 10 discuss nanobeams or nano-I-beams, at best they discuss nano-tubes.
    Source 1 is on methods of analysis and does mention nanobeams. However using a graphic from a review of modelling and analysing nanostructures, I believe that nanobeams are a larger category that may also include Nano-I-beams. Hence I don’t think 1 conveys notability.
    This leaves 4, which seems to meet the criteria such that it could help convey notability, but as previously mentioned it is barely cited. Finally I found another scientific paper, from the same author as 4, which could convey notability, but is cited even less.
    I therefore conclude that while 2 sources exist that could convey notability, they don’t actually do so due to how little notice/use they have had from the scientific community (reflected in how little they are cited). Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 14:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons described above.--Srleffler (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotion of non-notable work. Incidentally, the work being promoted was published in Scientific Reports, which is not a journal we should take seriously. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:40, 14 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shafik Quoraishee

Shafik Quoraishee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no significant independent coverage or profiles in reliable media to satisfy WP:GNG. Shafik Quoraishee is mentioned in primary or self-published sources (personal website, LinkedIn, Medium) and event listings. Icem4k (talk) 20:44, 12 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hammel, Green and Abrahamson

Hammel, Green and Abrahamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lots of mentions and the usual industry listings. But I couldn't find any in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 TT me 16:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Olkovikas of HGA's Digital Team, most of the edits you've requested seem to be passing mentions or trivia. What fully-independent reliable sources with significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth have you identified? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Justlettersandnumbers -- I have added a few more suggestions since this note, and will continue to do so. You said that /most/ of the edits are passing mentions, or trivial. Would you be able to identify which of those suggested to-date are least passing/trivial/most up-to-snuff? This would help my continued research and collection. Thank you very kindly! Ethan Olkovikas of HGA's Digital Team (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Ethan Olkovikas of HGA's Digital Team, I just glanced at them – that's why I said "seem to be". You can read the requirements for reliable sources and significant coverage for notability of companies by following the blue links in my previous message. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you @Justlettersandnumbers. I have been familiarizing myself with those resources as of late. I have also been working to suggest edits to remove all first party sources/promotional content. Ethan Olkovikas of HGA's Digital Team (talk) 15:37, 17 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.

Roboboa

Roboboa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not convinced this toy robot meets WP:GNG. Article isn't much more than an unsourced summary of its functionality and has seen little improvement since 2008. A WP:BEFORE search revealed no significant coverage other than brief mentions of its announcement in 2007. MidnightMayhem 07:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Nichols, Larry (2008-07-25). "Robot pets do not poop". Philadelphia Gay News. Vol. 32, no. 30. p. 25. EBSCOhost 33550317.

      The abstract notes: "The article evaluates robotic pets from WowWee Robotics including Roboboa, the Alive series robots and the Robopanda."

    2. Stone, Adam (2007-05-11). "Everything's Cool". Baltimore Jewish Times. Vol. 296, no. 2. pp. S22 – S23. ProQuest 222780229.

      The article notes: "Your Next Snake We promised you a snake, and now we deliver New from WowWee is the Roboboa, a robotic serpent that dances. Yep. They finally made a robot dancing snake. It's a beautiful world we live in. You can control the snake's 40 movements with a remote, or just crank the tunes and watch it dance to the music. It's also an iPod speaker, alarm clock and motion detector. We would just like to repeat these words one more time: Robotic, Dancing. Snake. For the robot-dancing-snake lover in all of us, could the world be any more cool? "

    3. Schwarz, Reuben (2007-09-04). "Slinky bed mate". The Press. p. T7. ProQuest 314888094.

      The article notes: "Here's an alarm clock with a difference. Roboboa is alarm, reading light and electronic pet all rolled into one. It explores, it parties, it even guards your desk by shooting lasers (actually just a noise) at anything that comes into view. It also interacts with WooWees other toys, like Robopet and Robosapien, and probably scares the heck out of your pets. And it'll be that much harder sleeping in knowing a robot snake is staring down at you."

    4. "These are the droids you're looking for: WowWee Roboboa". Stuff. 2008-01-01. Factiva FFUTS00020071207e4110000j.

      The article notes: "You’re probably wondering how this android snake gets about. In fact, Roboboa glides across flat surfaces with a curious moonwalk action courtesy of rotating cylinder segments. It all makes sense when you put him into Party Mode, whereupon he squirms around to his own disco tunes and puts on a little light show."

    5. Le Bourlot, Éric (November 2007). "L'invasion des robots jouets" [The invasion of toy robots]. Science et Vie micro [fr] (in French). p. 11. Retrieved 2025-07-13 – via Internet Archive.

      The article notes: "Toujours inspirés par les travaux du chercheur au chapeau Mark Tilden, le Roboboa a la forme d'un ser- pent et le Roboquad est un drôle d'alien à quatre pattes. Tous deux peuvent se dépla-cer, repérer des obstacles. Mais attention, malgré ce qu'annonce Wow Wee, ils ne disposent pas d'une réelle intelligence artificielle, et si on peut leur inculquer certains comportements basi-ques, ils n'évoluent pas avec le temps."

      From Google Translate: "Still inspired by the work of hat-wearing researcher Mark Tilden, Roboboa is shaped like a snake, and Roboquad is a strange four-legged alien. Both can move and spot obstacles. But beware, despite what Wow Wee claims, they don't have real artificial intelligence, and while they can be taught certain basic behaviors, they don't evolve over time."

    6. "Свестрана змиа" [Versatile snake]. Politikin Zabavnik (in Serbian). 2007-11-30. Retrieved 2025-07-13 – via Internet Archive.

      The article notes: "Свестрана змиа Argos Roboboa Стручнаци куе „Argos" осмислили су необичну роботизовану направу ко je савитльива попут змие да би била што прилагодливиа разним наменама и назвали су je Roboboa. Склопльена од дигиталних уреаа, ова „купна змиа" лако може да промени облик и изврши чак четрдесет едну радну. Тако, рецимо, Roboboa може да се користи као лампа за читанье, будилник, поуздани чувар кои бележи сваки покрет и о томе одмах обавештава, али и као саиграч кои добро прати ритам музике. Оваква свестрана направа заиста je пожельна у сваком домапинству. Може да се купи по цени од око 160 евра."

      From Google Translate: "Versatile snake Argos Roboboa Experts from the house "Argos" have designed an unusual robotic device that is flexible like a snake in order to be as adaptable as possible for various purposes and have called it Roboboa. Assembled from digital devices, this "snake" can easily change shape and perform as many as forty-one tasks. For example, Roboboa can be used as a reading lamp, an alarm clock, a reliable guard that records every movement and immediately informs about it, but also as a teammate that follows the rhythm of the music well. Such a versatile device is truly desirable in every household. It can be purchased for a price of around 160 euros."

    7. Melanson, Donald (2007-10-15). "Roboboa slithers its way to the USA". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2021-01-23. Retrieved 2025-07-13.

      The article notes: "While WowWee's dancing Roboboa robot has already made its way into a few select parts of the world, those in the US have so far had a considerable harder time getting their hands on one. That looks to have now changed in a big way, however, as the so-called "alien with attitude" is now available directly from WowWee for an even $100."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Roboboa to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 03:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uni Abex

AfDs for this article:
Uni Abex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, profit/financial reporting, turnover news, capacity expansion news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 21 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 keep‎. Despite some poor argumentation, I see clear consensus here that there is too much material for either of the proposed mergers to be workable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of the metre

History of the metre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redirect to History of the metric system, merging small amounts that aren't essentially duplicated or better covered there.
This article is functionally a fork of History of the metric system, which includes pretty much everything this article might if fully developed. This article's also exceptional; we don't have "History of" articles for other units like the kilogram, second or ampere.
The forking is something of a wiki-historical accident; this article began as "Redefinition of the Metre in 1983", a redefinition in terms of the speed of light which at least one editor thought very foolish. This article may have been created to corral that issue but long arguments about it continued across many articles leading to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, this article narrowly survived an AfD but its scope was soon expanded to History of the metre, and activity on this article died down. Meanwhile History of the metric system was created, continued to be developed, and was a GA until recently. It already has much well-written well-sourced content about the history of the metre itself and its context, but broadly speaking without the digressions that this article has sometimes included.

As this isn't a new article, it seems (I've not done this before) that WP:ATD-R applies: discuss on talk page first, but if consensus is lacking, go to AfD for discussion with the wider community. Opinion at History of the metre#Redirect to History of the metric system? was divided 2:2 and so though long discussion there just might reach unanimity either way, it seems better to come here as WP:ATD-R's preferred venue. NebY (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Why are we even having this discussion? When we had the 'vital articles' rating system, what would this be at? A 2? Even a 1?
The history of the metric system is huge, an article like this is entirely appropriate. Especially given that the historical context of the metric units for length and mass are so different, the length standard itself having driven huge advances in Earth geodesy. This wasn't the British Imperial system where they simply sat down one day to arbitrarily define each and every unit according to some convenient aspect of the king, the metric system of 'just basing the metre on the size of the Earth' then needed the first serious efforts to measure the size and shape of the Earth itself.
This is just the sort of article that WP should (and seemingly can) deliver good content on. Back in the days when Wikipedia was 'that place that made the internet not suck', this was the type of article that made it so. Now we just seem more concerned in finding pointless reasons to make WP worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Keep as a redirect. Cameremote (talk) @gonisulaimann 22:22, 13 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.



Engineering Redirects for Discussion

Engineering proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Engineering&oldid=1300302406"