Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interesting Engineering (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Engineering

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Sourcing has not improved since the last AFD (soft deleted) and I was unable to locate any additional good sources online. The subject fails GNG and NCORP. Justi yaya 02:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. Justi yaya 02:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Science, Engineering, Transportation, Turkey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable web content, most instances of supposed "coverage" in secondary sources (§ References in the media) are simple attribution mentions. Could not find any instance of coverage sufficient to meet WP:NCORP or the WP:GNG. —Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, reference spot checks in the section § References in the media are not turning up any mentions; at this point I would be surprised to find more correct claims in that section than incorrect. A Ctrl+F search turns up lots of hits for "interesting" but not for "interesting engineering", especially for the subject corp. But they aren't all free/infront of a paywall, please {{ping}} me if someone can confirm any of the mentions. I know that factual inaccuracies in the article are no reason for deletion, but it certainly raises my BS meter and I think any claims suggesting sources meet the WP:GNG should be balanced against the advice in WP:THREE. —Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bobby Cohn. I was not able to find any sources, and the cited sources are either not reliable or do not mention the subject at all; not even passing mentions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2024 (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.