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

Raymond C King

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCER. Most of the sources presented are either unreliable or have no connection to the subject in question. A WP:BEFORE shows very little coverage, which proves that the subject isn't notable enough. Article also appears to be an autobiography, so WP:COI issues are a possibility. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Engineering, Software, California, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Soto Chalhoub

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

Created by a single purpose account. I don't believe he meets WP:BIO. Could only find namesakes in google news and books searches. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – The SPA component of this discussion is troubling. The article's creator has zero edits in the encyclopedia other than this article, and the text that was contributed is laden with puffery, suggesting a close connection to the subject. Dawnseeker2000 08:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, and much of it is unsourced information in violation of WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneblower

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

This is in some sense a thing, but as far as I can tell it's not a class of things; it's a particular type of railroad ballast groomer which works using a different mechanism that more usual ballast tampers. And there really only appears to be one model of this. On top of that the tone is largely promotional, and that reflects the sources I have been able to find, which appear to all be press releases about its introduction. The "this will revolutionize the industry " slant to the text is rather undercut by there apparently being only three of these in existence, all working on one railroad. Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - The article does seem to be overweighted with information about an early model that didn't work out. I've added a bit of content about a more recent model. Yes, there are a lot of press releases, but by selecting my search terms carefully I was able to avoid these and find some other sources. Using Google Books I also found several books in which the stoneblower technology is being discussed; although most of these are "snippet" views, they do seem to be weighing the technical pros and cons rather than making company announcements. If you think more sources are needed, I can try to wade through them. One of them says " Stoneblower represented a considerable advance on existing track maintenance vehicles and several companies submitted low tenders in an attempt to get hold of the technology". —Anne Delong (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've perused my copy of Railway Maintenance by Brian Solomon and cannot find any mention of a stoneblower. That book's scope is primarily North America, however, and the stoneblower seems to be primarily used in the U.K. Most of our articles on railway maintenance equipment are not very well written (early on in my career here I did work on Ballast regulator and Spike driver and created Tie exchanger, among others, but they're not up to the standards of my current writing). From reading pages 20-21 of the cited Non-Destructive Evaluation of Railway Trackbed Ballast I see references to several other works that purportedly cover stoneblowers. Looking online I found an article in an industry publication along with a research paper, the latter added to the article by Anne Delong already. I'm leaning keep but in the worst case this should be merged with Tamping machine. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It helps to look this up by the formal name of ballast injection rather than by the slang name "stoneblowing". Uncle G (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nanochannel glass materials

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

Article about arrays of nanoscale glass holes; not to be confused with Nanopipettes or Anodized Aluminum Oxide. Article is based upon a NRL development or patent, and a single NRL science paper where these were used as a template for deposition.^[1] While that is an interesting paper, it did not get adopted by the community, having 86 total cites as of March 2025, which is not large for a high-profile journal. No indications of general notability, certainly not compared to nanopipettes and other types of nanoscale piping in microfluidics or similar systems which are different. Hence fails notability criteria for retention.

Article was PROD'd by nominator, with a PROD2 by User:Bieran. Prod was opposed by User:Mark viking who added sources on nanoscale glass pipettes, and argued (see Talk) that the article is about nanoscale channels, which it was not. Note that the sources added are for single pipettes, not arrays. Options are:

Delete
Keep
Redirect to nanopipette, i.e. keeping such pipettes as a topic that is notable, but acknowledging that what is currently here is different, i.e. abandoning the array concept. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would think a merge best here. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect is acceptable to me. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fail-safes in nanotechnology

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

Page that fails WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:Notability. It combines a number of different topics, with original research suggestions for ways to prevent malfunctions. The page contains 8 sources, but only [6] is claimed to be related to failsafe and reading of the source only has “In the future, if our molecular automaton is sent on a medical mission, it can be programmed to exercise similar judgment”, i.e. crystal ball. When this page was created in 2008, perhaps there was discussion of building failsafe into future nanotech, although I am dubious; for certain this neologism has not been adopted by the community. Topics such as self-healing materials, self-healing hydrogels, self-healing concrete (and a few more) as well as fault tolerance are well established, and should not be confused with this neologism.

Curtesy ping of User:Bearian. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Some folks want to eliminate all of these poorly sourced articles on nanotechnology, some want to leave them all here. I'm taking them on a case-by-case basis. Everyone knows that we have never published original content. There's lots of places to publish this. We're a charity under attack and we can't stray from our missions. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your opinion about the nano articles. If repairable and notable they are fine, and should have sources added and be updated although that is non-trivial work. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Subject is clearly entirely speculative and not suitable for inclusion. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...not only because of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, but because of total misrepresentation of the sources. Source 1 is cited for the claim "It is possible to scale down macro-scale fail-safe principles and devices for similar applications at the nano-scale", but the cited reference says absolutely nothing remotely related to this. Source 2 is for the statement "These robots would have the ability to construct other nanostructures or perform medical procedures, and will be introduced into the body via an injection". "Robots" are never mentioned in the cited article, and "inject" appears once, in a passage about introducing magnetic fluids to an artery supplying a particular tissue. This article is an irredeemable disaster. Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Redirects for Discussion

Engineering proposed deletions

^ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.270.5233.68

[1] ttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.270.5233.68

[1]