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

Evacuation tip

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

Unsourced page on a topic that is not notable. While the term "Evacuation tip" has sources in Google or Scholar they are for something completely different, tips used to evacuate in dentistry. PROD by User:Chidgk1 & PROD2 by nom was contested by User:Kvng as WP:NOTCLEANUP which seems to be irrelevant - a term that has no relevant sources cannot be cleaned. At most this could be redirected to a sentence in Vacuum Tube although I am very dubious. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:42, 18 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) 14:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I guess I was moving too quickly when I deprodded this. I agree, my deprod rationale doesn't make sense. Though Tube socket and Vacuum tube are potential merge or redirect destinations, that's not going to work without some rework and there is no sourced content here to salvage. 23:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Tube socket, where it is mentioned. This seems more like an entry in a glossary, not something that needs a whole page here. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Huang

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBIO, not much WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. I don't know if cloud.com counts as "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record". TurboSuperA+_(talk) 09:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 09:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, Computing, California, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete :There is no coverage at all. I'm surprised this stayed up as long as it has. -- BriefEdits (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a suitable redirect target: Apache CloudStack. The article subject is mentioned in the History section. Pavlor (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see a mention of Alex at the Citrix source posted. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alarm indication signal

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

The article has only one not-so-reliable source, with almost all statements being unsourced and a quick Google search didn't yield many results. It's unclear if the topic is notable, but this article has been here for ~20 years without much improvement. As it stands, the article is too technical for most readers to understand and may be better started over from scratch.

I had submitted to prod. It got one endorse, but then was declined by an IP address with the comment "known in the industry". 7804j (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. 7804j (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Highly technical with no suggestion, let alone sourcing, that it may be of general interest. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Digital Signal 1#Alarms as this is where the system originated. It has apparently been propagated to ATM and Ethernet, which would explain why we have a stand-alone article. But the success of this was limited and so there is not enough sourcing available to demonstrate notability for a stand-alone article. ~Kvng (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helios (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Source 1 barely mentions the company. Sources 2, 3 and 5 are very similar; 3 and 5 appear to be unbylined press releases and 2 is churnalism of the same press release. Source 4 is non-independent as practically all information comes from the mouth of cofounder Alexander Aronson. Sources 6 and 7 don't load (probably a result of using ChatGPT). I can't find any non-routine coverage of the company. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Environment, Technology, Philippines, and Singapore. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative Control Theory

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

I suspect this article is either original research or doesn't meet notability criteria (in addition to being too technical for most readers to understand).

Collaborative control as a general concept makes sense. But it's not clear to me that "CCT" as it is branded in this page is really a distinct concept that's widely recognized and clearly defined by the broader academic community. For example, the article states that there are 8 core principles, and goes on with very precise naming for them. However, when Googling some of these principles in conjunction (e.g., "Collaboration Requirement Planning" "e-Work Parallelism"), I find only a dozen of articles with very few citations. In general, while many articles talk about "collaborative control", but they don't seem to refer specifically to "CCT" as it is defined here.

I am not familiar with the area, so I would like the community's opinion on this. I would have no strong opinions if people think this article should be kept. 7804j (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. 7804j (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This article seems to have major issues that should be addressed. I'm not an expert on the article's subject matter, but the WP:CONTEXT issues are the biggest problem IMO as I wasn't able to understand anything about the topic from reading it. Some possible COPYVIO and OR signs. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:40, 20 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Popescu

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV of this individual that I could find. The article relies on a single reference. GhostOfNoMan 06:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GhostOfNoMan 06:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What a surprise, another Topcipher/SwisterTwister/Trampton substub. These are bad and in need of cleanup but almost always based on underlying notability, and WP:DINC. In this case, IEEE Fellow is an automatic pass of WP:PROF#C3, the exact case that is used as an example of what passes in WP:PROF. The record is confused by the 2021 death of someone with the same name, supposedly a billionaire bitcoin holder, but I have not yet been able to determine whether there is any connection other than in name and I have no opinion whether the bitcoin Popescu is also notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Finland, Hungary, Romania, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; As others have said, he meets WP:PROF#C3 (by being an IEEE fellow which is an autopass) and so is notable. If you don’t trust the source in the article (a facebook post), this is the table of fellows of the IEEE. Select “P” and go to page 30, he is at the top of the page. Or go to the year of 2015 and select “P”, he is mentioned there. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 11:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, adding another vote. A very obvious pass based upon the IEEE Fellow election. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he passes WP:PROF#C3 due to his IEEE fellowship. --hroest 19:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this looks to be a mundane WP:PROF#C3 pass. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Despite the many keeps, I do not see how being a fellow of IEEE with no other significant coverage meets general notability requirements. Speaking as a fellow of another world renowned body, I think C3 is not met by the IEEE fellowship alone. Coldupnorth (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. C3 specifically states that Fellow of IEEE is a pass. If you think it should not be then you could post at WT:NPROF to see if you get a consensus to change the policy.
Ldm1954 (talk) 18:19, 22 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 education in the United States

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

This article is an effective uneeded fork from [Education], and should be at best a redirect. The LLM like text does not help this as well. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like that Engineering education#United States is TL;DR. It probably should be shortened to a paragraph with a link to the {Main}. I put 4 hours into creating that page, I think the maintainers here are flagging me for using an LLM to create these List of robotics journals articles, is when they flag the engineering education one. They get frustrated with work from me somewhere else and retaliate against me somewhere else. Wikideas1 (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, did you just say you used an LLM to create a wiki article, and a small fork is not needed. I did not retaliate against you, it was more of the fork. Remember we have to have a neutral POV. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. Wikideas1 (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To my mind, a few things should happen here. Engineering education is a mess, its contents should be moved to Engineering education by country à la Vegetarianism by country. The remaining stub should be expanded with sources on Engineering education generally: Wiley has a journal in its 114th volume on this, and books from major academic publishers cover this topic in depth (e.g. [1][2]).

If the content currently in Engineering education#United States is copied across here, this article will be at least 1500 words, which is large enough to justify a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE split. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 05:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep, merging from Engineering education. I think there is some merit in keeping information in the Global engineering-education article, both as an overview, and because for some countries there isn't yet enough to say, to justify a separate article. But the US section is quite long, and it's reasonable to split it off. What isn't reasonable is for the split-off article to contain less information than the global overview article! So I'd suggest converting the global article's section to a brief summary, with a "Main article" header pointing at Engineering education in the United States, and then put the full information in this article. On the side, what's with the LLM tag? is there any evidence this was LLM? Elemimele (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it because refs 5 and 6 have ?utm_source=chatgpt.com in their URLs, which is something ChatGPT tends to add to links. Also, the section "Professional licensure" includes a lot of acronyms in parentheses that are never used again in the article, which is another thing LLMs seem to love to do. It's not the most egregious case I've seen by any means, but I deemed more likely than not to have some LLM involvement in the writing. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation; that's annoying because it raises questions about reliability. I checked both of those references, and neither is appropriate in the place it was used. One is general advice from an employment agency, not talking specifically about the US system, while the other mentions engineering only once, and not in the context of tiered education. I've removed them. Unfortunately it's quite possible other sources are going to be equally weak. Elemimele (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fujairah National Group

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

I would have draftified this but it’s long past the 90 day limit so bringing here for consensus. I’m not sure about notability and my preference is to send to draft for possible improvement. . Mccapra (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Arab Emirates. Mccapra (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Health and fitness, Companies, Travel and tourism, Education, Engineering, Aviation, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - far too much promotional material and too few citations. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 21 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 14:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nano-I-beam

(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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icem4k (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is also his work at Nieman lab: https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/01/how-the-new-york-times-is-building-experimental-handwriting-recognition-for-its-crosswords-app/, which is a significant and notable publication. And also at the Brave Technologist where he was interviewed: https://brave.com/podcast/e71/.

The NYT Open Platform is maintained by the New York Times, where his work is mentioned. https://open.nytimes.com/developing-an-internal-tool-for-our-puzzle-editor-d5dc7a9a6464

He's also mentioned on The New York Times Games wikipedia. The New York Times Games Meester king (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to Keep, based on the above additional sources and notes. Meester king (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Engineering, Computing, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There don't seem to be enough independent sources that cover his person for us to have an article. Notability according to WP:NPROF doesn't seem to apply either; I can find a Shafik Quoraishee who has published a few papers, but nothing nearly prominent enough to meet those criteria. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but willing to change my mind: I don't see multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject in the current references. If someone who was involved in the article wants to take a look, I recommend providing WP:Three sources as a starting point and we can go from there. Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, and I appreciate your willingness to reconsider. To help clarify why Shafik Quoraishee meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies (WP:BIO), here are three independent, reliable, and secondary sources that offer significant coverage of his work—not passing mentions or trivial inclusions:

---

1. Nieman Journalism Lab (Harvard), Jan 17, 2024

Title: How The New York Times is building experimental handwriting recognition for its Crosswords app

Link: https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/01/how-the-new-york-times-is-building-experimental-handwriting-recognition-for-its-crosswords-app/

This article profiles an engineering effort led by Quoraishee to build an ML handwriting system for NYT’s Crossword app.

It covers technical architecture (CNNs, on-device inference), product decisions, and his role in implementation.

Nieman Lab is editorially independent of the NYT and widely regarded as a reliable source on media and tech.

✅ Independent ✅ Secondary ✅ Reliable ✅ Substantial focus on subject

---

2. Droidcon NYC – Official Speaker Listing (2025)

Link: https://nyc.droidcon.com/speakers/shafik-quoraishee

Shafik is listed as a speaker at this major developer conference, where he presented on ML-based handwriting input for NYT Crossword using TensorFlow Lite.

The profile includes professional background (11+ years Android dev, prior roles at NBA/Business Insider) and links to related publications.

✅ Independent ✅ Secondary ✅ Reliable ✅ Professional recognition

---

3. AI Engineer World’s Fair – Session Abstract (June 5, 2025)

Title: AI and Game Theory: A Case Study on NYT’s Connections

Link: https://www.ai.engineer/schedule (navigate to June 5, Design Engineering track)

Quoraishee gave a scheduled 20-minute talk on using semantic clustering, puzzle-solving models, and graph theory to analyze NYT’s “Connections” game.

The abstract includes conceptual depth, showing this is not just a résumé filler but substantive technical work discussed at scale.

✅ Independent ✅ Secondary ✅ Reliable ✅ Focused on subject’s original contribution

---

Summary

These sources:

Are not self-authored or promotional

Provide significant, sustained attention to Quoraishee’s work

Appear across multiple venues with clear editorial oversight

They satisfy the core of WP:BIO and WP:N—particularly the standard that “significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources” is the bar.

If you need more links, screenshots, or context to verify these directly, I’m happy to provide that. 209.87.169.34 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 1 is primary and written by the subject. It is likely that the rest of the post has similar basic errors, and may have been regurgitated by a large language model output, so I will not read it in detail. Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent WP:SIGCOV. None of the IP's suggestions move the needle. Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 20:37, 16 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The references in the existing articles are not reliable (please read WP:RS). Additionally, my WP:BEFORE search did not yield significant results, and I don’t believe the subject meets WP:NCORP criteria. Baqi:) (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded this page in January, with the rationale "Nothing here to suggest that this firm might meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. The text is sourced almost entirely to its own publicity materials". It was deleted and then restored, but nothing in the page has changed. It gets a good number of passing mentions on JSTOR and on Scholar, but I don't see anything resembling in-depth coverage. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Justlettersandnumbers, @Onel5969, @Wcquidditch, and @Spiderone -- I am trying to suggest some edits on the talk page that remove promotional, first party sources and present secondary sources. I hope that you can review and provide some commentary on these as I continue to present additional sources and ideas. Thank you! Ethan Olkovikas of HGA's Digital Team (talk) 15:23, 15 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

(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]

Delete: I only get two hits in Gnews. [3] I'm not sure that's a RS, but it was featured at CES, then appears to have faded away. Lack of sourcing. Non-notable item. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, Technology, Hong Kong, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 16:22, 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]

Keep satisfied with the sources found by Cunard. SongRuyi (talk) 16:54, 22 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:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only "Keep" voter in the previous AfD commented that the company has a market cap of £4 billion, but that figure is completely off the mark. Its actual market cap is ₹674 crore (£60 million) [4]. All the references in the article are routine listings, and WP:BEFORE yields nothing substantial either. Yuvaank (talk) 01:56, 8 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]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 23 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