Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Science. 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|Science|~~~~}} 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 Science. 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 September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Science

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. Owen× ☎ 20:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change in North Rhine-Westphalia

Climate change in North Rhine-Westphalia (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)

New editor has created a number of pages called "Climate change in X region/country" and they are very similar. While the title seems a fitting topic for an article the content is mostly WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL e.g. Ticks and mosquitoes and will become more commons(sic). Thought I would wait for consensus on whether this is a delete or improve before nominating the rest. Orange sticker (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I believe User:Landpin's comment is an unbolded Keep. I'm not sure what "Delete ALL" refers to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 19 April 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.
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 keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. Editors interested in a possible Merge can discuss this prospect on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revista Brasileira de Química

Revista Brasileira de Química (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:SIGCOV and has not citations in the article. Only mentions are in bibliographic databases. In the context of academic journals, this was apparently published in a time period between 1930 and 1980 as a local (country-specific) journal of chemistry though it has been difficult to pin down exact dates. Searching in CAS (chemical abstract service) SciFinder for the journal results in only 86 articles catalogued, and most of those seem to be reviews of general chemistry topics for the Brazilian audience (e.g. Armentano, M.A. Origin and development of cosmetic science and technology (1979), 87(527), 143-8). No external coverage that I can find beyond database listings in WorldCat and CAS. A few libraries may still have hard copies per WorldCat for those that can + want to look deeper via interlibrary loan to see if scientific contributions were significant. My prod was removed with the comment that this was an important scientific journal mid-century, but sourcing is still needed to back the notability claim. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Based on sources that Headbomb has provided and the edits planned by BaduFerreira, I agree that merging pages about the various successive journals together or to their parent society pages is a better course of action. Not closing yet to avoid cutting off discussion. Willing to help locate articles from these journals (ping me).Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit, that might be about the other journal... It's so frustrating not to be able to speak portugese here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Revista Brasileira de Química into Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Química.
Very fascinating article! Thank you for finding it. On PDF page 3 (article page 447), it says that the first edition of the journal published by the Brazilian Chemical Society (SBQ) (more info on this later) in 1929 was titled the Revista Brasileira de Chimica, but the second edition published in 1931 was titled the Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Chimica. The title changed again in 1933 to spell Chimica (chemistry) as Química, which is the modern-day spelling, due to orthographic changes in the Portuguese language. That means that the two articles (Revista Brasileira de Química and Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Química) are about the same journal, so I think a merge is the proper course of action. The source describes other Brazilian chemistry societies, such as the Associação Química do Brasil (Chemistry Association of Brazil) that occasionally butted heads with the SBQ, the Associação Brasileira de Química (Brazilian Association of Chemistry), and then a new Sociedade Brasileira de Química that was founded in 1977 after the creation of the Brazilian Association of Chemistry. The source specifically mentions that the two instances of the Sociedade Brasileira de Química are distinct and separate organizations. We could probably use this article to flesh out the Brazilian Chemical Society article. I'll try to make some improvements to these articles in the next day or so! BaduFerreira (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to the relevant societies is also a possibility. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:39, 12 April 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.
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 14:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P-6 (mountain lion)

P-6 (mountain lion) (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)

No indication why this would be a notable animal. There doesn't seem to be an article about the group it belongs to, so I see no good redirect target either. Fram (talk) 10:03, 11 April 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.
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 merge‎ to Mountain lions in the Santa Monica Mountains. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P-12 (mountain lion)

P-12 (mountain lion) (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)

Doesn't seem to be a notable animal, just one of a group which gets closely followed, but not independently notable. We don't seem to have an article about the group, which might be the better solution than articles for all individuals in the group. Fram (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing GNG. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:00, 14 April 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.
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 23:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Macdonald (scientist)

Chris Macdonald (scientist) (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:SIRS and so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Has anyone seen if he passes one of the criteria for WP:PROF? The Prof Test is an alternative method of showing notability, so please ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a young professor who has just gotten an under-40 years old award. The "extensive coverage" of his work is the newspaper reports generated from a single University of Cambridge press release. He appears to have only that single paper in Google scholar, which has mixed him up with a Canadian business professor. It is too soon for him to have an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete:.
  • Dr Macdonald has multiple publications: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3880-6563
  • His coverage was not the result of a ‘single University press release’ – it was the featured research story on the University homepage – and independently of that, it was covered by BBC, ITV, etc.
  • He clearly passes the criteria for WP:PROF (of which you only need to meet one):

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline: His recent article is “in the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric”.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level: His research won the National Innovation Award, the Digital Health Award, and the 40 Under 40 Award.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association: Dr Macdonald is a Fellow at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of the Institute of Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity: His research has appeared in over 100 international news outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayneDavis07 (talk • contribs)

JayneDavis07, our criteria can be confusing for a new editor. Most researchers have multiple publications. What matters is not how many they have published but how other researchers have responded to those publications by citing them in their own papers. That is how we determine significant impact. Most awards, and definitely not young investigator awards, are not what we mean by "highly prestigious". Having newspapers cover ones research when publicized by their employer is common and not considered "substantial impact". "Fellow" is a term used in many different ways. In Macdonald's case the first Fellow is one of the terms used by Cambridge for their employees, so does not qualify. The second Fellow is just the name of the level of dues paying member of the ICRS, not an honorary award given for major contributions to a field. Macdonald is a promising researcher, and may well qualify according to WP:NPROF in the future, but not now. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the impact of his publications see here. He has only been publishing for a few years. We would need to see over a hundred citations per paper for impact, but he is just starting out so hasn't had time to develop. He does have 14 papers in Google Scholar, but his latest one is linked to another author. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Do not delete:

Fellow in the Cambridge system is not merely a term for employees. Fellows are voted in by the Governing body and are special honours for “distinguished, learned, or skilled individuals in academia, medicine, research, and industry.” There are different types of Fellowship at Cambridge (Visiting Fellow, Research Fellow, Fellow Commoner, Bye-Fellow, etc) – Dr Macdonald holds a full unrestricted permanent Fellowship and as a result is a full voting member of the Governing Body of the University – the highest honour.

Under the criteria for WP:PROF, Academics only need to meet one of 8 conditions.

1. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

With regard to condition 1 – Dr Macdonald won the 40 Under 40 Award in the Science category. The award has two rounds of voting – the first is an expert panel, the second is a public vote – the award programme is at the national level and is for the nation’s most influential and accomplished leaders.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

With regard to condition 7 – Dr Macdonald developed and launched a virtual reality public speaking platform to help individuals overcome speech anxiety. He made the platform fully open access, and it is used by people around the world. It is a first-of-its-kind platform – the only to be free and accessible on all platforms and operating systems. Accordingly, it received widespread global media attention - it was covered in over 100 media outlets - including The Times, The Guardian, ITV, BBC, etc, etc. This is outside of a conventional academics remit.

It makes the academic “significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice”.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JayneDavis07 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have not been able to find evidence that Chris Macdonald meets the criteria for GNG or NPROF. As noted by StarryGrandma, most of the publicity appears to be based on a press release from cambridge. Public press about a single VR program is not indicative of academic notability.
  • Responding specifically to arguments above concerning NPROF:
    • 1. AltMetric is not good for determining academic notability as any mention on any site online can improve altmetric. If we're considering notability based on academics, then his work needs to be highly cited by other academics, which it is not.
    • 2. The awards he has won do not appear prestigious on a national or international level, names notwithstanding. Think Nobel prize (international) or something like a Priestly medal (national chemistry award in US). I'm not even sure which 40 under 40 list he was included under because there are so many of these lists today and the specific list is mentioned nowhere in his bios. A public vote for an award is also not good criteria for academic notability.
    • 3. Elected member/fellow of a society. A fellow at a uni is not the same thing. Reading through the types of fellow at Lucy Cavendish College, it sounds like he is just a professor (not the same thing as Cambridge wide fellowships --- each college has their own processes). Nor is being a "fellow" at a non-profit think tank funded by a bunch of corporations in the name of "responsibility"
    • 7. Unlikely over 100 international news outlets covered his virtually reality public speaking VR work independently. This is also definitely WP:TOOSOON as the impact of the work that was released a month ago is not yet known.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - based on the above discussion, he lacks significant coverage and fails the PROF test. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - super promotional -- cannot find anything to support the keep. The 40-under-40 award is from a company whose only purpose is giving 40-under-40 awards...that is not they type that creates credibility. A lot of Cambridge fellows are notable even if their articles don't show it, so I did some look around. I just don't see it in the article or at large. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:27, 23 April 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.
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 merge‎ to Sabeer Bhatia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nano City

Nano City (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)

Proposal in 2006 to build a city in India for nanotechnology work. The project never went anywhere and was formally cancelled in 2010. The only sources are two 2006 news articles about the proposals, and two articles when it was cancelled. It is very hard to justify this page as notable, particularly as there is no evidence that this cancelled proposal had any impact -- fails WP:Notability means impact. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If someone wants to mention this on Sabeer Bhatia that's fine. Merging more than a 1-2 sentence mention would seem excessive to me though as there does not appear to be much more than routine news coverage announcing the project and its demise. Tech people/rich people proposing utopias that eventually never happen feels pretty routine these days anyways.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:13, 14 April 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.
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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 21:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UCPH Department of Chemistry

UCPH Department of Chemistry (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. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm leaning towards keep just because this is such an old department and has the start of what looks to be a verifiable history - I just can't find it because I don't know any Danish and have to rely on Google Translate to find anything useful. If no one else can find information about it (the other departments also pretty heavily rely on primary sources, though they are in general better sourced) then it would probably be best to merge to University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science. Reconrabbit 15:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:34, 19 April 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.
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 no consensus‎. I see support for a merger, but without consensus against keeping the page, merge is not an alternative to retention. A merge discussion on the article's Talk page may be more productive. Owen× ☎ 23:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nanochannel glass materials

Nanochannel glass materials (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 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:

References

  1. ^ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.270.5233.68
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I contested the PROD and added three secondary sources; the first two sources (sources 4 and 5)[2][3] had material on nanochannel arrays in addition to single nanochannels; search for 'array' in the articles and you will find it. The third (source 6) was purely about single nanochannels. The first two sources seem to have enough array content for notability per WP:GNG and so my first recommendation would be to keep the article. Should other editors disagree on the notability threshold, there is certainly plenty of verifiable material within secondary sources to support a merge into Nanopipette. It's WP policy to try to preserve verifiable material per WP:PRESERVE, so I think a merge would be an acceptable second choice. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The MRS Proceedings, published by Cambridge University Press, are WP:RS since both the society and the publisher are well-regarded in the scientific community. These articles undergo editorial and technical peer review ([4], [5]). Each of the 3 cited papers provides independent coverage of nanochannel glass materials as its main subject. That satisfies WP:GNG, which requires only significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Sustained or recent coverage is not required.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HerBauhaus (talk • contribs) 01:06, April 13, 2025 (UTC) HerBauhaus (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To editor HerBauhaus: I am sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with your argument that 3 citations in extended conference proceedings such as those you quote satisfy WP:GNG. (Few senior academics in MSE include MRS proceedings in their CV, those publications would be ignored by their peers/Deans.) Similarly 3 cites in standard journals are not close to enough. This is even more so when the papers being quoted come from the same authors at NRL of the patent and paper upon which an article is based, so are clearly not independent, secondary sources.Ldm1954 (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Approval by senior elitist academics is not required for notability. If there is peer review by a reputable publisher, that is generally enough to consider a publication reliable in terms of the review aspect. Not independent and secondary mean these primary articles by themselves are not enough for notability. Nonetheless, primary publications from 1996, and others in the article, and the two secondary reviews I linked above from 2013 and 2018, show sustained coverage--even the array subtopic was not a one-week flash in the pan. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:40, 16 April 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.

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Deletion Review

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science&oldid=1285522239"