Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Engineering

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Engineering Redirects for Discussion

Engineering proposed deletions