Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Engineering

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 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:deletion sorting|Engineering|sig=~~~~}} 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

watch

Engineering

Spall strength

Spall strength (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 appears to be an LLM article creation with some typical WP:AISIGNS including WP:AIDASH and WP:AITREND (As a result, spall strength research continues to evolve at the intersection of materials science, mechanics, and data-driven engineering.). See the original submission. It hasn't had any substantial edits since article creation (mostly citation clean up, link clean up, and fixing section header casing). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete or very limited merge to Spallation or Spall (as in, just the first paragraph at most). The topic is notable, but the article is too detailed for a general audience, and violates WP:NOLLM. All the sources I checked are good, but it's your classic LLM-drafted technical article: A "history" section that cites a couple of off-topic passing mentions, a grab bag of applications each sourced to a stack of primary papers, and a "current research" or similar section that reads like engineering firm PR. Yuck. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

LLM was used solely for Wikipedia formatting, not content generation. I’m not understanding your claim of over reliance on em dash use, as there is only one instance of their use in the article. Happy to concede that it gets a bit technical for a general audience, but so do many articles about niche properties (see acoustoelastic effect).

I understand a push to merge, but looking at similar cases of a property that is behind a phenomenon (such as Fatigue limit and fatigue), makes it seem that this is not necessary. Ewint6 (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Government Polytechnic, Patna-7

Government Polytechnic, Patna-7 (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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, India, and Bihar. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gulzarbagh — Additional searches yielded nothing with SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. Still, ping me if useful sources are located. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 18:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – the institute's own site plus state board and department pages verify that it exists but give it no significant coverage (WP:NSCHOOL). Kukuryza (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Citations are the institute's own site, the state board's affiliation list and government officer directories, none independent or in-depth. Searches produced only admission aggregators and counselling lists, so WP:NSCHOOL is not met. Onatic (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Helical extrusion

Helical extrusion (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)

Wholly unsourced article, that does not prove it's notability. I would've gone for CSD, but I do have a little faith in this article, so I propose it be draftified. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 13:21, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I found multiple research articles that discuss helical extrusion: , , , and . There are more articles out there too, but these are the ones that caught my eye. I'd add it to the helical extrusion article myself, but they're all fairly technical and seem to reference the process in general while the article as it's written only talks about the application to the plastic pipe industry. I'm also not sure if this is the kind of thing that proves notability, but I figured it's at least a start. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 16:17, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgelRM (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone does a WP:HEY rescue. The topic might make a decent article, but this is not it. I see no reason to draftify as the page creator has not edited since 2009. The logical place for this is a redirect and merge to Extrusion if someone adds sources. Otherwise it is TNT.Ldm1954 (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Chemistry and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

OP Comment I believe a relisting may be in order. This doesn't seem like a great discussion at the moment. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 12:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per Ldm1954. I know there is no statute of limitations on sourcing an article, but this and similar articles are bait for those who want to use this as an excuse to wreck us. Of course a redirect is acceptable. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Preeni Withanage

Preeni Withanage (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)

Notwithstanding that the page was accepted through the AFC process, I don't think this subject is notable. None of the sources in the article seem to provide any significant coverage of her as a person; she is often quoted in her official capacity as a representative of NERD and other organisations. I haven't found anything else of use for meeting WP:GNG; there's this interview, but again that's really about the government policy rather than about her. Nothing suggesting any of the WP:ANYBIO criteria are met. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, Engineering, and Sri Lanka. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Keep. I understand the concern that several sources quote Withanage in her official capacity. However, I think there is enough independent coverage to warrant considering WP:GNG. In particular, the 20 June 2017 Daily Mirror article gives substantial coverage to her analysis and recommendations concerning LNG pricing, infrastructure costs and Sri Lanka's long-term electricity-generation plan, rather than merely mentioning her. There is also an extended 2019 Echelon interview, as well as independent coverage of her petroleum-sector work in The Island, Daily Mirror and Tamil Guardian over multiple years.

  I acknowledge that many of these reports focus on the policies and projects she was involved in rather than providing a conventional biographical profile, but I believe the cumulative independent coverage is substantial enough for the subject to meet GNG. Grove317 (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Nannapaneni Venkat Rao College of Engineering and Technology

Nannapaneni Venkat Rao College of Engineering and Technology (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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, India, and Andhra Pradesh. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:20, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Additional searches yielded nothing with SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 18:49, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

List of engineering colleges in Telangana

List of engineering colleges in Telangana (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 propose merging to List of educational institutions in Telangana because List of Educational Institutions in Telangana already consists of all medical colleges in the state and I don't see why engineering colleges need a separate list. The current List of Engineering Colleges List is also badly formatted. Blazing Fiery (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, Lists, and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Lorstaking (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to List of educational institutions in Telangana: per nom. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 18:53, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to List of educational institutions in Telangana per nom – the list carries no citations at all, only some seventy links to the colleges' own websites. Kukuryza (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Stephen W Tayler

Stephen W Tayler (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)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 04:33, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, Engineering, and United Kingdom. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:01, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Potentially notable; the AllMusic discography is substantial. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 07:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Behind-the-scenes figures can be notable, and Tayler has a full-length 1993 interview feature in Recording Musician, substantial discussion of his methods in a 1986 Sound on Sound piece and a recent long-form trade Q&A, alongside a mixing discography taking in Kate Bush, Rush and Tina Turner. That is enough for WP:BASIC. Onatic (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Onatic: Interviews dont prove notabillty. That is cardinal rule on Wikipedia. A trade Q & A is a form of interview as well. Do you have a link for the sound on sound piece. scope_creep^Talk 10:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Copenhagen Atomics

Copenhagen Atomics (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 propose merging to List of small modular reactor designs because the article seems to fail WP:CORP: Out of 11 sources, 7 are written by the company, and none provide the required significant, reliable, independent, and secondary coverage required for notability. I searched online but was unable to find sources satisfying all criteria. I was able to find significant coverage in industry publications like NuNet or World Nuclear News, which have questionable independence and are largely reporting press releases. The page also appears to have been created by an employee of the company. H2so4aq (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Denmark. H2so4aq (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• keep - the article now has 4 cites from the mainstream nuclear trade press plus one from a Tuskish MSM, which I think count as significant, reliable, independent, and secondary coverage for this kind of technical company (plenty of other nuclear articles rely of mainstream nuclear trade press cites). I think this is adequate, though could still be improved. I only count 6 of the now 14 as Copenhagen Atomics content, though I have not evaluated 3 of the cites which seem to be minor sources. I think the article is too big to be rolled into List of small modular reactor designs, so I think it should be kept. (I notice Danish EnergyWatch, which appears to be a trade online magazine though not sure if RS, says CA is looking to a US IPO, so article seems likely to grow.) Rwendland (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for your improvements to the article and for finding additional sources. I still have a couple concerns. We're relying pretty heavily on trade publications to prove notability, which WP:CORP heavily discourages. Both WNN sources lean more towards churnalism than independent coverage, as does EIC funds thorium reactor in NEI Magazine. Proving MSR Reliability in NEI is an interview with the company's CEO, while Copenhagen Atomics: the story so far in NEI is written by an employee of the company. For reference, here are the relevant press releases from CA's website: . I'm unable to read the NucNet article, although the Türkiye Today one appears to be satisfactory coverage. But I'm not confident this article passes a strict reading of CORP; I'm concerned that almost all information about CA is still being traced to press releases and finding reliable, independent sources is proving challenging. Let me know your thoughts. H2so4aq (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I can see your concerns. I had not previously read (as I generally edit technical/product articles not their company articles), so had not really appreciated that ordinary trade press articles don't contribute to establishing notability - which makes sense in that even inconspicuous small companies will often be mentioned in the trade press. But now with the seemingly very independent MSN article plus the Türkiye Today article we seem to minimally pass muster. I think the fact that the EU European Innovation Council has selected them for funding also demonstrates some notability. The situation is difficult for one-product companies as really it is often the product that gives most notability rather than the company vehicle. Rwendland (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  The MSN source does not appear reliable: MSN is a news aggregation service, and that story is really from a site called thingstodoindubai.info, whose reliability appears very low. H2so4aq (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Whoops, you are right. I fell into the trap of confusing it with MS NOW/MSNBC which is ok by WP:RSP. Sorry. Rwendland (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  No worries; looking at the sources now though, it seems we're down to effectively one (Türkiye Today) independent source at all. NucNet is a reliable source, and has significant coverage, but it's still a trade publication and anyway I can't verify its independence without being able to read it. I don't think this is enough for a full article, but if you disagree we could consider asking the folks at WP:RSN to weigh in. H2so4aq (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Yet, the Turkish article lacks any substance about the nature of the deal. Apparently, it is about the future production of thorium-based fuel.--Wickey (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Websites like NEI, WNN and NucNet are indeed little more than collections of press releases and advertorials, while CA already promisses reactors for a fixed price of $50 million per 100 MW_th reactor. The company is still in the early stages of development. I don't see the value of keeping track of each step.--Wickey (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose merger - you can't just merge a company article to a topic article! SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 10:02, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Why not? There's already an entry under List of small modular reactor designs for Copenhagen Atomics, and several for designs/companies that don't have their own pages, so it seems like the most appropriate place. I am unaware of any policy or guideline against doing so. H2so4aq (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:NCORP - most of this article as it stands is sourced to press releases; if and when it becomes notable the article will be better if built from scratch then. Improve the section explaining their proposed design in the List of small modular reactor designs article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar317 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - per H2so4aq; → List of small modular reactor designs#Copenhagen Atomics: Denmark.--Wickey (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)