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

Patrick Groeneveld

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Non notable person. Followed some of the links through Wayback archive, the conference one was only some words written by the person themselves. No SIGCOV. Equine-man (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking beyond BASIC/WP:GNG notability, he works in an area where WP:PROF might plausibly be relevant. However, his citation counts are too low for #C1, I don't think a service award should count for #C2 (that is for awards for scholarly work, not service), he is not an IEEE Fellow (#C3), a research fellowship to work at KNAW is not the same as the kind of fellowship that would mean an honorary membership in the academy (#C3 again), and his past full but not distinguished professor position is not enough for #C5. So I don't see any notability this way either. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adora Nwodo

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

I can't see how she meets the notability criteria Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Engineering, Software, Nigeria, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nigerian promotional article, won a 40-under-40 award per my searches [1], which isn't notable for our purposes. Typical flowery language, I don't see AUTHOR being met either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: She is a successful engineer but not notable per our community guideline. Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saumya Chaturvedi

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

Doesn't meet GNG. Only one source on page. . to demonstrate the subject won some obscure (pay to enter) industry award. No evidence of significant coverage. Jevansen (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jevansen (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Engineering, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of this promotionally-toned article does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG, nor WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, nor WP:CREATIVE. An online "Before" search finds only social media postings, (and a possible COI). Netherzone (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Vizcarra

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

This article doesn't meet the criteria for notability under WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Depending on the outcome of the ongoing election, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON but that has yet to come to fruition. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Engineering, and Peru. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least three sources address the subject in depth and in detail, meeting WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. I strongly believe in the level of WP:SIGCOV, but I am not familiar with the reliability of these sources. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
cosas.pe	Describes party membership, polling, criminal history	✔ Yes
Infobae [2] [3]	First is routine coverage; second addresses political activity, criminal background, potential election.	✔ Yes
Perú21 [4] [5]	#1 is routine. #2 is in depth on criminal proceedings, investigations, relationships.	✔ Yes
RPP	Routine coverage with little detail	✘ No
Gestión	Routine coverage w/ little detail	✘ No
El Comercio	paywalled but appears to be routine	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E. Having coverage entirely related to being political candidate does not get us past this requirement. The coverage of past low level criminal activities does not get past this either, because the only reason it is being brought up is due to its impact on running for political office. I think this also runs against the spirt of WP:BLPCRIME.4meter4 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Despite this, a later poll showed Vizcarra becoming the second most popular presidential candidate by mid-October 2025" should be a pretty good notability indicator. Clearly a notable national figure. --Soman (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2026 Peruvian general election for now. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Redirects for Discussion

Engineering proposed deletions