Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Engineering

Points of interest related to Engineering on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

Purge page cache

watch

EUROAVIA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Repost of content previously deleted and salted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Association of Aerospace Students * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gulwareen Bacha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't establish notability. Article was previously DRAFTIFY but moved back to main space without much improvement. Looks like PROMO editing. Wikibear47 (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Wikibear47 (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability not established, does not meet requirements Coldupnorth (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Behappyyar (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bechly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I found this article as it was raised at BLPN recently by PLBechly, who says they are the subject. Bechly does not seem to be particularly notable – none of the cited sources seem to be independent of the subject, and I am unable to find coverage which is. Nor do I believe that their awards are the kind of well-known or significant ones which would qualify for notability through WP:ANYBIO. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform field theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article only has 1 source that is mis-attributed and with an incorrect title; the relevant author that should be S. Butterworth, and in the source "Uniform theory" is in quotation marks. The page and the reference suggest that there should be an equation, but no equation is provided in either.

I found another much more detailed paper by S. Butterworth that uses the phrase "Uniform field theory" ^[1], however it looks like he is using in an informal manner to refer to the assumption he made to help with his derivation rather than it being an actual theory. As for the actual equations he produces, the physics is going a bit above my head, but I think relevant information belongs in Inductance if it is not already there.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions.User:Giuliotf 18:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DICDEF, although a selective merge is appropriate. Bearian (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TEXEL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Largely promotional/COI article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Environment, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Bobba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet notability standards, only famous from news WP:BLP1E ${\displaystyle {\text{Clyde}}2_{3}^{9}}$ (👋 • 🗣 • ✍️) 00:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Engineering, Software, California, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Department of Government Efficiency#Members We should probably do the same for the others as well TNM101 (chat) 04:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Department of Government Efficiency#Members: per above. AgerJoy talk 08:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick Merge and Redirect per above. The AfD on three other DOGE workers has concluded today to Merge, and this article seems to have even less of a reason to exist than the workers discussed there. Mystic Cornball (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as discussed above by Mystic Cornball Asteramellus (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - while he's got a lot of power, and if power doesn't define political notability, then what would, but I'm the prototypical mergetarian. Bearian (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gautier Cole Killian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

not the subject substantial independent coverage Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Can't you simply redirect it back? RodRabelo7 (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that is a possible outcome of an AfD discussion, one that I would be fine with in this instance. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Engineering, Software, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick Merge and Redirect to Department of Government Efficiency#Members Nothing in the article implies any notability on its own that we don't already cover in the DOGE article. The AfD on three other DOGE workers has also concluded today to Merge, and I don't see anything justifying an article on this guy in direct comparison. Mystic Cornball (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Almost all of the DOGE workforce articles are unnecessary, but I think this one as well as Luke Farritor are potential exceptions due to some notability on their own. In this case, the whole rehiring drama and JD Vance and Trump commenting on it in my opinion means that WP:BLP1E doesn't necessarily apply here. Though if we do indeed keep the article, that incident should become much more of a prominent focus. Mystic Cornball (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Keep / Move The 'rehiring controversy' points to some notability, though at this point I'm not fully convinced the article isn't WP:BLP1E. I don't think the 'read-write access controversy' confers notability since he reportedly didn't know he had such access or used it; that controversy more directly implicates the US Treasury "mistakenly" giving improper access to DOGE. I'd be more convinced if we see more things happen in his story, like he actually does rejoin DOGE and that's widely covered, or he becomes a right-wing influencer or something. ^Falling_Gravity 04:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that none of the 3 BLP1E criteria are clearly met its pretty obvious that the article isn't BLP1E. Remember it for an article to be BLP1E it has to be all three, its actually a really high bar. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• On points 2 and 3 he's a low-profile individual, and we don't know the full extent of his involvement in the controversies pending an investigation. However, I'm changing my vote to move to an article focused on the DOGE–Treasury access controversy, maybe called "Marko Elez laptop controversy". While I assumed the controversies were separate, Marcy Wheeler argues his resignation could have been because of that controversy instead of the WSJ reporting on racist tweets. ^Falling_Gravity 02:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would argue that there is far more evidence that he resigned because of his old tweets than the DOGE-Treasury access controversy (which I would not characterize as a *controversy* in the same sense as the resigning/rehiring arc). I think it makes far more sense to keep and potentially reassess if we get incontrovertible proof in the other direction. Xy1231321 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible both played a role and he just got cold feet when things started to pile up. The point is we shouldn't confuse correlation with causation. ^Falling_Gravity 22:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• He isn't a low profile individual because he "Has sought or holds a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority in a field of research, a sport, a business market, a political sphere, or other area of human endeavor, usually at more than a locally-significant level." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that means people seeking political office or influence, not everyone who has ever worked for the federal government. He also wasn't a "special government employee" as some early reports suggested, just a regular employee. ^Falling_Gravity 21:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't talking about everyone who has ever worked for the federal government... We're talking about an employee who has apparently sought (and to an unclear extent achieved) vast pre-eminence, power, and authority in multiple federal agencies according to the reliable sources. This is not a "regular" employee in any way, this employee is highly notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources I'm reading say he resigned as soon as he faced public scrutiny, and he hasn't returned despite being "rehired" with support from his top bosses (Musk, Vance, and Trump). If he is seeking "vast pre-eminence, power, and authority" like you claim then he's doing a poor job at it. He hasn't given any interviews, even in right-wing media, and he hasn't even emerged as a social media personality. All this to me doesn't signal high profile status. ^Falling_Gravity 22:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't expire quickly, once you've held or sought pre-eminence, power, or authority you're a public figure for a decade at least (some argue for an exception for minors which is sometimes implemented, but this is not a minor). The way we have it written doing any part of the standard makes you high profile, you don't have to do everything (for example you don't have to give interviews to be high profile). We also seem to have two notable events, his activities at the treasury and the kerfuffle over his posts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two notes:

> "All the sources I'm reading say he resigned as soon as he faced public scrutiny"

He started to receive public scrutiny when the story broke that he had admin privileges on the treasury payment computer systems. This was an entirely separate news-cycle from the whole resignation/rehiring.

> "he hasn't returned"

We don't actually know this to be *true* apart from the fact that nothing suggesting otherwise has leaked to the media. Considering Musk, Vance, and Trump all suggested he'd come back, it seems more fair to place the burden of proof on showing that he hasn't been rehired. Xy1231321 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the emptywheel: "But multiple court filings claim that Elez resigned and never came back, at least not to Treasury." That article's timeline of events is also worth checking out. ^Falling_Gravity 04:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep But changing the subject from the person to the breach/event might make sense. Meesher (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without prejudice to refactoring the article to focus on the controversy rather than a biography. There are enough sources focusing on him specifically that a separate article makes sense, but not necessarily a full biography. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:29, 18 February 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.

Civil engineering software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article reads like an essay. There are some citations, but the subjects are sufficiently disjoint that the decision to put all of these topics in one article does not seem appropriate to me. I'm fine with merging some content into different articles, but from an organizational perspective, I think the existence of this article is confusing and makes it harder for readers to find the information they need. The decision to talk about all of these topics in one article seems like a violation of WP: OR to me, because no one source discusses all of these different subjects. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I read the previous AfD before nominating this article. Sourcing is an issue here, but I'm more concerned with the fact the article covers topics that are relatively disjoint but are vaguely related to "civil engineering software". HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the topic is broad and WP:TNT would be a better option here. I doubt any information here isn't already present on the wiki under their engineering topics. It doesn't even provide examples of software like MATLAB. – The Grid (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur D. Yaghjian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominating for deletion on behalf of the article subject per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:GNG. The article subject believes he is a nonnotable person who should not have an article on Wikipedia. See VRTS ticket # 2025012410006294. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete coverage appears limited to scientific publications. We should honor the wishes of the subject in this case. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Rhode Island. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Tagging Myxomatosis57. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Seems a pretty clear pass of WP:PROF to me and the article looks uncontroversial. Is there a particular reason given for the subject to request deletion? Espresso Addict (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with @Espresso Addict, his awards are a clear pass of WP:NPROF#C3 and his citations pass #C1 since he is sole author on many. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. IEEE Fellow ("Life Fellow" but that just means fellow+older) is a clear pass of WP:PROF notability. The subject's modesty is virtuous, but not a convincing reason to delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you David. However, the Wikipedia article is not an accurate representation of my personal or professional biography. I tried to revise the article but Wikipedia would not allow me to do that. Therefore, after great effort to figure out how to do get in touch with the deletion editor, I requested that my article be deleted. Please do not try to prevent my article from being deleted, as well intended as you may be. Arthur Yaghjian Arthur D. Yaghjian (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not particularly arguing either way here, but one possible solution would be for someone with relevant expertise, perhaps David Eppstein or Ldm1954, to action Arthur D. Yaghjian's edit request, as an alternative to deletion. Looking at the edit history, it looks as if the edits were primarily rejected on copyright grounds rather than for conflict of interest. I have noticed that the editors responding to COI edit requests of late have become less and less inclined to honour even the most vanilla of changes and I can see why this might lead the subject of an article to request deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I might suggest to ADY that (from my experience as the subject of a Wikipedia article) it generally works much better to suggest (on the article talk page) the facts that should be updated, rather than suggesting the wording of how to present those facts. Doing so sidesteps both the issue of copying copyrighted text that seems to have tripped up the requests in this case, and the issue of promotional rather than encyclopedic wording that often arises in other cases and is difficult to avoid when writing about yourself. One might also, following Burns, take the existence of an article describing how one appears to others as a blessing, rather than insisting that only one's own view of oneself can be presented. It does not make me sympathetic to a deletion request like this one to see a subject who would be happy for Wikipedia to host an autobiography but is unwilling to allow a biography to be edited and worded by others. Every once in a while I look at the article about myself, shake my head at its haphazard state, and speak to myself the magic incantation: someone else's problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Like David, I look at the article on me and shudder at some of the errors, then move on. While I am a sympathetic to the desire to have an accurate version, since those prior edits are blocked (for me) I can make no comments about what might be improved. Notability is very clear as I voted before. Can someone make the prior history more available. (It seems it might have been a copyright violation from https://2024.apsursi.org/master_class.php, that page being very peacocky.) Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clear WP:PROF pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]