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

Shaoul Sassoon

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

Article appears to be a BLP failing WP:GNG, lacking significant coverage. The sources listed are primary (1-7) or passing (8). A pretty substantial search turned up nothing covering this individual. Garsh (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, Engineering, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources which i provided are this man's own interviews. and its very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a problem though, interviews are primary sources and do not show notability. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 11:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I do then. This article is very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq under Saddam Hussein Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autoship CAD/CAM

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

Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT and has a severe lack of any WP:SIGCOV on the software. Only mentions I could find are not independent or are just passing mentions. (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belden Tri-State Building Materials

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

Notability not established with substantive independent sources. Cites 1, 2 3, and 5 are the company's own website, 4 is a dead link but seems to be ref-bomb type irrelevant, 6 is also dead (some AI page?), 7 is a passing mention, 8 and 9 are both dead but likely only passing, 10 is passing irrelevance, and 11 is irrevant ref-bomb Reywas92^Talk 03:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Reywas92^Talk 03:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Krishna College of Engineering

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

There is nothing to salvage here. It uses only primary sources. Whatever sources are available online are mere trivial mention. So this cannot be merged as well. I would suggest a deletion or a redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to LNCT University - seems the institution is actually LNCT (Bhopal) Indore Campus per [1], as the address matches there, and primary links on LKCE article are actually with LNCT. No apparent indication that this is (directly) connected to Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow Dl2000 (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LNCT does not seem notable either. I have nominated it for an AfD as well Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete there doesnt seem to be SIGCOV. --hroest 19:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bundelkhand Institute of Engineering & Technology

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

There is nothing to salvage here. It uses only primary sources. Whatever sources are available online are mere trivial mention. So this cannot be merged as well. I would suggest a deletion or a redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as I proposed a few days ago. There's very little evidence of notability. Thank you Flyingphoenixchips, for the alert. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be deleted. Not even feebly notableAlmandavi (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow. Charlie (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaheed Sabur

AfDs for this article:

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

The sources are not providing significant coverage of the subject. The Dhaka Tribune offers only a brief background and a quote from the subject. The Daily Star article is not independent; it is entirely promotional. It even includes lines like “Zaheed believes that there are no shortcuts to success,” which suggests a sponsored angle. Fails GNG. GrabUp - Talk 08:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. GrabUp - Talk 08:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Somajyoti ✉ 08:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained to you previously, if you think an article is eligible for speedy deletion, you should specify which of the criteria for speedy deletion you think applies. If you just don't think the subject of this article is notable, it's best to just say "delete". Speedy deletion has a very specific meaning and only applies when one of those criteria is met. MCE89 (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I forgot. Thanks. Somajyoti ✉ 20:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I nominated this article five years ago (the result was delete), and my opinion remains the same. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Ahammed Saad (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sufficient notability to justify inclusion. Perhaps if more RSes could be found to bolster inclusion that would change things but that is not the case. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open Hardware and Design Alliance

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

I couldn't find secondary sources with sufficient coverage to establish notability. The best I could find was that [2] mentions them in passing and says they folded "some time after 2010", similarly [3] mentions them to say they've been "discontinued". [4] mentions they 'resurfaced with the “Open Source Hardware Certification” programme of the Open Source Hardware Association in 2018' but doesn't source that or give further info.

When I tried to PROD the article a year ago, User:Jueneu said on the talk page they were still active but I can't find any significant coverage since then, just some self-published content around "ohanda.one". JaggedHamster (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. JaggedHamster (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources that would qualify this for WP:NORG. Appears to be defunct and was never particularly notable. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Open hardware. The organization does not seem to pass WP:ORGCRIT for a standalone article, but a mention at Open hardware seems to be warranted given it has been (briefly) discussed in reliable sources such as [5] (published by Oxford University Press) or [6] (published by Taylor & Francis). MarioGom (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Computing. MarioGom (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Open hardware per MarioGom. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uni Abex

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

Lacks Notability. Sources are either primary or in the form of press releases. There is promotional intent too. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Products, Engineering, India, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. The current references are company profiles/press releases and/or are too short. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason that this "lacks notability". The current state of the article is poor and needs better sourcing, per WP:V, but that's not the same thing. Clearly this company exists, has existed for a long time, and is substantial (market cap of >500 Crore / £4B). Given that the article was only created today, I'm in no rush to delete it on such a weak basis. Editors are always welcome to do some of the legwork here and help to expand coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply existing or existing for a long time does not automatically mean that a subject is notable. A market cap of >£4b - while quite large and impressive, does not signify coverage in reliable, secondary sources, although it is expected that there would be such. Unless further sources are presented, there is no real reason to believe that the subject is notable by means of WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references provided in the article, are company's biography or 'Self Published'. I can not see any substantial coverage that satisfies GNG criteria. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Needs to go back to draft to see if it can be improved. Sourcing looks weak and needs wider coverage, if it is be seen as notable. Currently reads like an employee wrote it. Ramos1990 (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket boots

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

fails WP:GNG. The refs are copies of the same sensationalist article. I didnt find and native Russian sources, and English sources for the term are something else. --Altenmann >talk 00:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did find russian sources: [7] [8] but I am still not sure about notability. --Altenmann >talk 00:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Russia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the references is a bylined article from The New York Times. The South African article is credited to Sapa/DPA, which I think means that Deutsche Presse-Agentur, a reliable news agency, wrote the article and it was distributed in South Africa by South African Press Association, also reliable. I hoped to find the original DPA article by searching for Raketenstiefel, but only found uses of the term in the context of goblin rocket boots in World of Warcraft. Still, we have multiple in-depth references from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't find anything in the English sources to support the use of the term "rocket boots". (And it's certainly incorrect from a technical perspective; based on the description, these boots are much more akin to piston engines than rockets.) The Times article avoids using any name for the boots at all, and the Dispatch article refers to them once each as "quickwalkers" and "fuel-powered superboots"; do the Russian sources give these contraptions any particular name? Omphalographer (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a real product and didn't have name, usually it was called "Сапоги-скороходы" - in quotes - the Russian counterpart of Seven-league boots. Actually, it was a good question. Now I noticed the bureaucratic name of a model of the device, "устройство механизации бега" ("device for the mechanization of running", "run mechanization device") and this Russian term gives more hits, mostly anecdotes, probably not original. --Altenmann >talk 23:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Redirects for Discussion

Engineering proposed deletions