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

Naseem Ameer Ali (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)

Promo bio for a non-notable individual with no evidence of passing WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. His h-index of 5 (from the Scopus page linked in the footnotes) is what might be expected from a postdoc or graduate student, not an associate professor, and signals the opposite of

significantly impacted...academia, to quote the peacocking language used here. He meets none of the other NACADEMIC criteria. The sourcing (here and in a BEFORE search) does not support GNG either. It's limited to non-independent pages: his faculty profile, primary source bios ([1], [2], his own writings [3], [4] and a LinkedIn page. One source turns up a blank page and another is a random search box. The final tenuous claim of notability is an award as alifetime member of the NZ Institute of Quantity Surveying, but this is unlikely to be a notable award since NZIQS appears non-notable, and it fails WP:V, since the only source is the aforementioned WP:USERGENERATED LinkedIn page and search queries on the NZIQS website turn up no results for life/lifetime members or for Ali's name. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and New Zealand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A long way from passing WP:Prof and, on the basis of the thorough nomination, I don't see enough for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Elmo Motion Control (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)

Non-notable company. WP:ROTM. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (selectively) into Bosch Rexroth. The company is a subsidiary of Bosh Rexroth, presently an underdeveloped article. While it could be claimed that Rexroth should be merged into its parent, Bosch, currently it has its own article. That article is desperately in need of some of the content and references of Elmo Motion. gidonb (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olo (color) (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)

Page which suffers from a severe case of WP:TOOSOON, being based upon the contested color "Olo". The first version on April 24 was a redirect to imaginary color by Rlendog which OfficialWatchOS7 decided to overwrite with a stub on May 1 without any talk page discussion. To me, since the color is not as yet verified at most it can be a redirect. Rather than getting into an edit war etc time to go to AfD to discuss enforcing redirect (or not). Ldm1954 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is based on reliable sources -- The Guardian, Scientific American, and LiveScience among many others you can find by just googling. Clearly meets WP:GNG and as it represents a possible research method it's notability isn't likely to go away. TOOSOON is an essay that says "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." But many sources clearly exist, even if the study hasn't yet been replicated. All the article should do is acknowledge that. It's contested whether it's a new color, but that's mostly semantics -- it's a stimulation of the optical cells that doesn't occur naturally, which is interesting. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article needs expansion but there are plenty of reliable sources about this topic, including new ones since the originally story broke, e.g., [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Rlendog (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per @Mrfoogles and @Riendog AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having voted keep above, I think that once more research is done on this topic we might end up moving the article to an article on laser-stimulated colors (or whatever they end up being called) rather than having a page for each one. But that's far in the future right now as far as I can tell. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page, Olo may be imaginary, but that doesnt mean we cant see it we have the color pallete for it dispite being super satured. Douglas15amor (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Ćorlomanović (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)

Previously deleted by WP:PROD and recreated. I do not see a pass of WP:NPROF here -- there are two moderately highly cited items in the Google Scholar profile, but they appear to be combining separate articles or items. I am noting that the prod message ("This person is a crackpot pseudoscientist who is abusing Wikipedia in multiple languages to simulate credibility. I have detailed my objections to the Serbian wiki page of this man here sr:Википедија:Трг/Архива/") expressed concerns about possible deceptive patterns, and the Google Scholar profile seems to be evincing this. I am skeptical of GNG notability, although it is plausible. I am concerned about unsourced and unlikely puffery in the article such as "It seems that he was the first who introduced terms such as quantum information and quantum-information technology to physics," although if he is notable then of course this can be cleaned up. Bringing to the community's attention for a consensus. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Serbia. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No pass of WP:PROF. Clicking on the asterisk on the cited items in the Google Scholar profile shows that they are actually unrelated publications by other people. Actually searching Google Scholar finds nothing under either the Roman or Cyrillic versions of his name. The claim to have invented quantum information is blatantly false (it was in use in the 1960s by Ingarden and Stratonovich, long before the subject was born). This work appears cranky enough that, per WP:FRINGE and WP:N, we need mainstream sources evaluating it and we have none. Spot-checking the ref-bombed article found no sources that would even pass WP:GNG let alone passing this stricter neutrality requirement. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, China, and Yugoslavia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I say again that I have inserted new sources and that this should not be ignored. The sources that are important are the report by the Chinese Times and RTS (Radio Television of Serbia), which was officially published with international credibility. Then the reference that leads to the archive of Dubna University in Russia (Dubna is a university center and the largest institute for atomic and nuclear physics in the world) and Google Scholar. If Google Scholar is not an authoritative source either, because sources are inserted manually and did not exist until a few years ago, Dubna is without a doubt an institute where few scientists can appear just like that. Then there is the report by the Chinese Times from 2017, where Dr. Miloš Ćorlomanović appears at an international conference in Beijing, and the picture in the newspaper shows that he is on a board with scientists Dr. Irena Ćosić from Australia, Dr. Ljuba Ristovski from Serbia and Dr. Boris Petrović from Brazil. In addition, I think I also see Dr. White from New Zealand. These are all scientists who have their own works and international cooperation. Then there is the RTS report from September 25, 2019, where at a conference on famous and deserving Serbs in the world, academician Dr. Miloš Ćorlomanović was presented as one of the 20 most deserving Serbs in the field of natural sciences. The conference was organized by the Association of American Serbs. These things cannot be faked. The thing is that most of the referenced articles actually came from the source of Portal 013 from 2018, which was officially the newspaper of the South Banat District, one of the 7 districts in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina in the Republic of Serbia. That newspaper had an interview with Dr. Miloš Ćorlomanović when he transferred his work to the Institute of General and Physical Chemistry, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Belgrade. The thing is that the article about Dr. Miloš Čorlomanović was here for 7 years and was removed after so long without any valid reasons. If the biography criteria have changed, I can understand that, but not that an article that is referenced better than articles about some other scientists is deleted just like that. For example, the article about the Serbian-British scientist physicist Dr. Vlatko Vedral is referenced only by his biography from his personal website, so only a personal page. There are many such examples. As for the Serbian Wikipedia, that article was deleted for political reasons and someone's personal vandalism, without paying attention to the sources I sent them, and then a bot was put in place to prevent the article from being posted at all, where literally after a couple of minutes it puts a page for deletion. If the criteria for living individuals have changed, I can be told about it via messages and given time to obtain additional sources, but I must be told what and specifically. I know the person in question personally and he is my fellow citizen and I can do an interview with him if necessary. It is also possible to do an interview in his laboratory at the institute at the University of Belgrade. The thing is that he is a military scientist in China and cannot always publish everything. As for the story about the inaccuracy of so-called quantum information, which someone is referring to here, it is not about qubits from the field of computer science and computing, but about the quantification of some physical quantity, as the person in question once explained it to me. Similar to quantum space and quantum time. But if you think that is not correct, you are free to delete it, as well as everything else that you consider to be incomplete. Crnizmaj (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the above screed my advice to delete this much-declined BLP is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete - all of the sources appear to be unreliable, including four citations of Wikimedia Commons, a link to Google Search, and a Serbian search engine that shows zero results for "Miloš Ćorlomanović". --Iiii I I I (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others above. Many of the sources are irrelevant or don't exist, and his h-factor is 2. Not close to WP:NPROF, with highly dubious claims. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Basically, I don't understand those factors. My observation was related to articles about other scientists, where I do not notice significantly different sources, on the contrary, they are often just personal biographies, mostly on personal websites. I even explained in detail the origin of the source, i.e. that the official local newspaper conducted an interview with the person in question and that other newspapers reported, then there is the Chinese Times, references of some works on Google Scholar and to the library of the University of Dubna, as well as some visits to institutions in Serbia. This certainly proves that it is a real person and that it is nothing imaginary. The only knowledge I have about the person in question, which is not related to the larger story, is that the person in question is a military scientist in China, which quite possibly accounts for the non-standard sources about him, so that creates confusion. However, it cannot be disputed that the Association of American Serbs, at the conference on famous Serbs held in Chicago on September 25, 2019, declared him one of the 20 most deserving Serbs in the field of natural sciences. You have attached a link about it. It's true that his profile doesn't exist on Serbian Wikipedia, but that doesn't prove anything, because there someone anonymous ignored the sources in the midst of vandalism. His profile has existed on the Dutch Wikipedia for many years. Crnizmaj (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saravana Kumar (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. Man doing his job. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 16:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The creator of the article content, Evan Chumpino (talk · contribs), responded to this nomination by requesting G7 speedy deletion. However, the article actually overwrote a prior redirect to P Saravana Kumar, leading Pppery (talk · contribs) to restore the redirect. Does G7 even apply in cases such as this (an article overwriting a redirect), or will the article need to be reinstated to allow the full seven days to play out (as any BLAR removes the AfD tag, which can only happen in conjunction with a nomination closure, which has not happened)? WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wcquidditch: How goes it? I'm no sure to be honest. But I guess this is moot. I see the redirect has been restored. I'll withdraw as there is no need for it to continue.Nomination Withdrawn as a delete. scope_creep^Talk 05:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Cooley (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)

Non-notable businessman with an apparently promotional biography; fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The sources do not support notability. They are limited to:

• WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS ([10], [11], [12], [13])
• Non-independent sources affiliated with him ([14])
• Press releases from his companies ([15], [16], [17]) and verbatim to thinly rewritten versions of them ([18], [19])
• WP:PRIMARYSOURCE event descriptions and speaker bios ([20], [21], [22])

A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional qualifying sources, just similar content to the above. As for other criteria, I don't see an WP:NACADEMIC pass. Regarding NACADEMIC #3 and WP:ANYBIO #1, his status as Fellow of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining is not a particularly significant award (the fellowship has an open application process, unlike say the Royal Society that requires nomination from existing members). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Science deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

• Comment: I respectfully oppose the deletion of this article. In response to the concerns raised, I have added three additional WP:RS sources in which the subject, Dr. Graham Cooley, is prominently featured. These include substantial coverage in reputable media, and complement the existing citations already on the page. The article references multiple reliable and independent publications such as BBC, The Guardian, Lancaster Guardian, The Irish Times, and Financial Times. These are not trivial mentions or paid pieces; they are organic, editorially independent articles that discuss Dr. Cooley’s work and industry impact in depth.

Of particular note is the BBC Business article, which highlights Dr. Cooley’s role in the UK hydrogen sector. BBC is a globally recognized reliable source, and coverage of this nature is rare and significant.

Dr. Cooley has also served as CEO in multiple British companies, a fact well-documented through reliable sources cited in the article. His leadership in the energy sector spans decades, with clear public visibility and professional influence.

Considering these facts, I believe the article meets the criteria outlined in WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, and WP:BLP. The subject has received significant, independent coverage in reliable sources, which firmly establishes notability under Wikipedia’s guidelines. I respectfully ask that the page be retained.Jennffarzi (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed each of these in my nomination statement, but let's take them one by one:

• BBC: A single WP:TRIVIALMENTION:The firm's chief executive, Graham Cooley, points out that it is much easier to store molecules such as hydrogen than electrons in batteries. "All the renewable energy companies… they've realised they've got a new product," he adds. "Now they can supply renewable molecules to the gas grid and industry."
• The Guardian (1). This is WP:SPONSORED content; it says "advertiser content" at the top and in the URL.
• The Guardian (2). This article briefly mentions Cooley but is not WP:SIGCOV of him.
• Lancaster Guardian: As noted above, this is a near-verbatim reprint of a press release, see WP:PRSOURCE, from Cooley's company and thus not independent.
• Irish Times: an obituary for Cooley's father with a single passing mention of Graham Cooley.
• Financial Times: a paid placement in the "Company Announcements" section -- not reliable/independent coverage from the paper itself.

All in all, not a single source you mention qualifies toward notability, nor do any you have added. P.S. Did you use an LLM to write your comment above? Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. I view this as an inappropriate nomination. An honorary professorship from a reputable university is a strong indicator that he has had a major impact in his field. IOM3 has a membership of ~15,000 and there is a Wikipedia page at Fellow of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. The nominator also misquotes the application process, which requires 2 Iom3 Fellows or equivalent. His other Fellow appointments are significant, as is his award. He flies through WP:NPROF qualifying under #1, #2, #3, #5 and #7. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a lot of NACADEMIC passes to suggest with very little evidence to support them! Can you provide documentation of how Cooley'sresearch has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources (ACADEMIC #1; hard since there are no independent, reliable sources that discuss Cooley, as discussed above). His actual scholarly output is so slender that Scopus has not even generated an h-index for him. Whathighly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level has Cooley received (ACADEMIC #2)? I think it's highly debatable whether being a Fellow of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining counts for #3; you would need to supply independent evidence that the IOM3 is a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. As for ACADEMIC #5, there is no evidence he has helda distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. His post at Brunel is an "honorary professorship", which according to our article on the subject is a recognition forindividuals [who] are not university staff nor employees and thus not actually faculty of the college and not subject to the criterion. Finally, for ACADEMIC #7, you would need to suggest reliable, independent sources that demonstratethe person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, and this is difficult since there are no reliable, independent sources I've found that indicate this. At the very best we have a pass on ACADEMIC #3, but that's debatable since I don't see evidence that the FIMMM is such a recognition. (Its Wikipedia article is sourced only to the organization itself.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dclemens1971, I am sorry, but you are taking far too narrow a view.

  1. Both the British RS & the US NAS & NAE elect people from industry who have not published extensively.
  2. Perhaps the case for #C1 is weaker, but is leading the development of new products research?. It is certainly considered important in science.
  3. I strongly suggest that you read IOM3 and do a little more in depth checking, and perhaps consult others or post to WT:Physics and/or WT:Chemistry to get input from academics. (I have a slight advantage here as this is in my field, Materials science.) Awards are routine indicators of impact, and you seem to be dismissing professional society pages as not independent, and their major, senior awards as not significant.
  4. Lastly, being elected as an honorary professor is really major, please ask other academics if you want other evidence.

  I agree that the coverage in new articles is not enough, but it does not have to be. We do not require the same type of coverage for WP:NPROF.

  I suggest you withdraw your nomination, and post to WT:Physics and/or WT:Chemistry and/or WT:NPROF to get further input. If others agree with you then you can always do a second AfD, but I can forecast the type of responses. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I expect that if other AfD participants agree with you, they'll chime in here. I do think there are zero grounds for a "speedy keep"; what's going on here is a disagreement about how to apply the criteria of NACADEMIC, but I have offered an appropriate rationale for the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• More sources found Dr. Graham Cooley is featured on more WP:RS. Take a look at these Sources from The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph:

1. . Hydrogen entrepreneurs at the forefront of the clean car revolution
2. . Hydrogen mobility gets £8.8m boost
3. . Power-to-gas energy storage could help displace use of fossil fuels
4. . New hydrogen refuelling company to drive a greater adoption of fuel-cell cars

There's a need to avoid "REF-BOMBING" on the page. I only added 2 out these as extra sources. There are others. These are all organic independent sources written by independent authors.Jennffarzi (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis: the Guardian is SIGCOV of Cooley's company that quotes him a couple times incidentally to his role as CEO. Same applies to this Guardian piece. The Telegraph has a single trivial mention of Cooley. [New hydrogen refuelling company to drive a greater adoption of fuel-cell cars This Telegraph piece] appears to have three trivial mentions. None of these is WP:SIGCOV of Cooley himself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per above discussion. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes PROF, although the sources need to be cleaned up. Ping me if you want me to edit it. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Precision Ltd (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)

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this company is clearly notable (the awards such as this are independent and significant) and the article is detailed and thorough. The problem here is it looks too promotional and should get an NPOV tag instead of deletion. WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winning an award is unfortunately not significant coverage, it does not address the subject of an article significantly and in detail. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ibtehal Abu Saad (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)

WP:BLP1E Cabayi (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Engineering, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Microsoft#2020–present: Acquisitions, Xbox Series X/S, and Windows 11, last sentence about the 50th anniversary. I doubt that event is notable since it seems like ye regular burst of NotNews coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename -- this is an oversimplification of BLP1E. BLP1E requires three things for deletion -- first, the subject is known for only one thing, second, they are low-profile, third, the event is not significant or their role was not substantial. Her role was very clearly substantial. We can debate whether the event is significant, but given it got so much news coverage, I would say it is worth keeping. This article should be moved to a title like "Microsoft 50th anniversary disruptions", not deleted, to comply with BLP1E. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The event isn't that significant either per WP:ContinuedCoverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Clear-cut BLP1E.
  • Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. All sources in the article are about the subject's protest.
  • The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. The subject has not done any interviews or media appearances after the protest.
  • The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. The protest lasted less than a minute and did not lead to any changes in Microsoft policy. It is not even worth mentioning in a "History of Microsoft" article. An article about the protest would fail WP:NEVENT.

Astaire (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allocation site (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:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• What are you talking about? NSOFT is (an essay) about computer programs, not concepts in computer science. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply -referring to WP:NSOFT,which means the article is related to non-notable software. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's what I said NSOFT is about, but I still don't see how it's the least bit applicable here. It would be like applying WP:NSPECIES to a concept in anatomy. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that NSOFT applies, but I also think a computer scientist could offer a more useful response. Mangoe (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still think the article meets Wikipedia general notability guideline criteria? Clenpr (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• On the assumption that this really is specifically germane to OOD, merge to Constructor (object-oriented programming), as I don't think you can say much about it out of that context. Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you provide a valid independent source so there is at least a reference in the redirected article? We do not want unverifiable content in Wikipedia. Clenpr (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The definition is correct, and it's not specific to object-oriented programming - it's used generally when talking about dynamic memory allocation. A quick search for "allocation site" on Google Books finds 15 references using it in this sense in the first 20 results. However, I'm not sure there's enough to say about the concept for an article of its own. Pointer analysis could be a redirect target, although that's specifically about static analysis and it's also used in dynamic analysis (e.g. memory debugging). Adam Sampson (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge though I am not as savvy in programming itself, basing upon the definition stated in the article, a sensible move for me is to merge it to Object-oriented programming,as on its own as it is, seems not enough as a standalone, noted also by fellow wikipedians above for lack of RS to support it.Villkomoses (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you provide a valid independent source so there is at least a reference in the redirected article? We do not want unverifiable content in Wikipedia. Clenpr (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 14:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• jlwoodwa, do you have an opinion on the two merge/redirect targets above? Mangoe, do you stand by your proposed target or would you prefer Adam Sampson's proposal of Pointer analysis? Toadspike [Talk] 14:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Memory management. The current article is not very useful, and a redirect to OOP-specific article would be incorrect. Memory allocation is not specific to object oriented programming. The concept of a an allocation site is not specific to OOP either. MarioGom (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]