Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Shortcuts

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:

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.
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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science/archive

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 no consensus‎. which does not preclude a merger which can be handled editorially. Consensus to delete is not going to emerge here, and we do not need a further relist Star Mississippi 02:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austral Launch Vehicle

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

Alright -- this article does have some reliable sources, including TheConversation. The issues here are this: this is an orphaned article, and this vehicle is a concept without WP:SIGCOV. See: it doesn't exist in its final form/ yet. As it doesn't really exist yet, WP:TOOSOON, also seems a bit like it violates WP:NOTPROMO. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Science, Technology, Spaceflight, and Australia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I said in the afd for Marie-Rose Tessier I can't take your argument seriously when you admit you think the sources are reliable in your original rationale also just because it is not complete doesnt mean it isn't ready for an article especially since as you have already admitted there are sources that cover it and how can it be promotional if the sources are reliable? Scooby453w (talk) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 04:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is not the end all be all. Just because something has been covered in a reliable source once does not mean that it is Wikipedia worthy; we also have WP:SIGCOV, meaning that articles need to have significant coverage. That pairs with coverage in reliable sources; this article has one reference to TheConversation; no sigcov in reliable sources. Next, there is WP:SUSTAINED. The coverage needs to be continuing and sustained; the last coverage of this subject was about a decade ago, and there hasn't been anything of note since. Fails that. All in all, clear deletion, unless a Wikipedian can find more recent coverage in reliable sources.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary jusf because it hasn't been in a source in a decade doesnt mean it should be deleted the 3 sources span multiple months its not like its something that shows up once on the morning news Scooby453w (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 04:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is one reliable source from TEN years ago, in TheConversation. Not enough reliable, independent sources. Finally, it doesn't appear that this project has made any noises for almost ten years, and the final product likely doesn't exist. If you find any more sources, please let me know. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we could do a Merge with Australian Space Agency. The total content makes for about one paragraph or so, but it is still of note. Hal Nordmann (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Draftify: The sources on ALV I’ve come across, including Springer papers by researchers from the University of Queensland and Heliaq Advanced Engineering [1], [2], are reliable but not independent, so they don’t satisfy WP:GNG. That said, they confirm ALV’s role in Australia’s aerospace research history. Given this, a merge into ~~Australian Space Agency~~ a broader topic would preserve this material in a more appropriate context, per WP:PRESERVE, or it could be draftified for further development and sourcing. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC) Revised !vote HerBauhaus (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG and falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements. As AnonymousScholar49 notes, this is a project that appears to have been on the backburner for about a decade, having received no independent SIGCOV in that entire period.

I would be happy with a merge, but is Australian Space Agency really the best place? None of the sources I'm seeing even make mention of the ASA, and I don't see a neat place to fit information on this project into the article as it currently exists. Maybe reusable launch vehicle would be a better merge destination? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added 4 refs from Google Scholar. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong Keep - lots of refs using Google.com.au.^link --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping: @Ethmostigmus, @Hal Nordmann, @HerBauhaus. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, two of the refs you added are duplicates of a reference already in the article (Schutte and Thoreau's "The Austral Launch Vehicle: 2014 Progress in Reducing Space Transportation Cost through Reusability, Modularity and Simplicity"), I assume this was a mistake. The third reference I see you've added, Preller and Smart's "SPARTAN: Scramjet Powered Accelerator for Reusable Technology AdvaNcement", is a conference paper that only briefly mentions the ALV. Both Schutte and Thoreau's paper and Preller and Smart's paper were presented at the same conference, the 12th Reinventing Space Conference that was held in 2014 (they are listed online as being published in 2016/2017, but this is just when the proceedings were made available online - the actual papers were presented in 2014). The fourth reference, "Scramjets for Reusable Launch of Small Satellites" also by Preller and Smart, also seems to only be a passing mention. That gives us two papers from 2014 and one from 2015. Looking at those references and the Google results, I can't find any evidence of further developments since 2015, and even at the time the coverage was quite minimal. This is worth noting because it indicates a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. I maintain that this fails GNG, and is best covered with due weight in an existing article like reusable launch vehicle. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi @A. B., I've coincidentally stumbled across the same sources you added as part of my !vote review. The rub here is that all the authors, including Peter Thoreau, Michael Smart, and Dawid Preller from the University of Queensland, and Adriaan Schutte from Heliaq Advanced Engineering, are directly affiliated with the institutions that developed the ALV concept. Since the ALV was created by Heliaq Advanced Engineering and the University of Queensland, I’ve classified these as primary sources. That said, if I’ve been too strict with my interpretation of secondary sources, I’m more than happy to revisit the sourcing question again. HerBauhaus (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I’ve been convinced this just had to be notable; something about rockets and space just begs press coverage but where was it on Google News?? Then I thought to check http://www.google.com.au -sure enough, there were news articles. It was late last night and I’m busy today; I may or may not get to it. Thanks for looking at this, HerBauhaus. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being accused of "ref-bombing", I have added 7 news articles including Australian Financial Review, the ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Royal Aeronautical Society and Aviation Week & Space Technology (the global aerospace and aviation industry magazine) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After checking through all of the references you've added, I still do not see evidence of significant or sustained independent coverage. Every source was published between 2014 and 2017, seemingly because the project stalled after that point, and even within that period of active development the coverage is scant. Preller and Smart's works barely mention the ALV, while the ABC and AFR articles mention it only in passing. Aerospace magazine gives a bit more detail, but its coverage is still extremely brief (and focused on SPARTAN, not the ALV). The iTnews article also provides no significant coverage of the ALV, mostly consists of quotes from individuals involved in the project about the potential of reusable launch vehicles. Ditto for the articles in the Register and New Atlas. None of these sources, besides the initial three (non-independent) sources already present in the article, provide coverage that could be considered significant. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 13:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources disagree on terminology. In some articles, the SPARTAN second stage is part of the overall 3-stage project known as the "Austral Launch Vehicle" project. In others, the Austral Launch Vehicle first stage is part of the overall 3-stage project known as the "SPARTAN" project.

What I know is that the overall 3-stage project is notable. Perhaps the answer is to rename this article to something else. I'm open to suggestions.

I'm also open to draftifying the article and I will work on it. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The plot thickens.

It looks like a company formed in 2019, Hypersonix Launch Systems, took over work on the SPARTAN second stage and tested it in 2021. This project, Heliaq Advanced Engineering (ALV's original developer now defunct?) and Hypersonix all have close ties to the University of Queensland's Centre for Hypersonics.

Also in 2021, the U.S., U.K. and Australia signed the AUKUS agreement in 2021; it included "Hypersonic and Counter-Hypersonic Capabilities" which built on the existing joint U.S.-Australian SCIFiRE hypersonic cruise missile project. The University of Queensland is involved in this as well.

At the time, hypersonics was touted as Australia's flagship contribution to an agreeement that was mostly about nuclear submarine technology.

I'm just guessing but Hypersonix and U of Q probably shifted to much more lucrative defense work and away from competing with SpaceX and everyone else. All 3 countries are far behind Russia and China in hypersonic capabilities.

Collectively all this content is notable and needs a good home on Wikipedia. I'm not sure where -- suggestions? A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help with any of the heavy lifting if you decide to draftify. Feel free to ping me for sourcing or the write-up. HerBauhaus (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A. B., the first 7 (existing) sources in the article are from researchers Smart, Schutte, Thoreau, and Preller, all directly tied to UQ/HAE and the ALV project, making them primary sources. Of the next 7 (new) sources you added, only two are solid WP:THREE candidates: The Register offers clear, independent coverage of ALV, and Financial Review provides balanced coverage, though it includes a few quotes from Smart. Three are borderline: ABC is heavily reliant on Smart's quotes, Aviation Week gives technical context but doesn’t focus on ALV, and New Atlas covers ALV under the broader SPARTAN project with heavy developer input. The remaining two, AEROSPACE and iTnews, are weak as they rely almost entirely on developer statements. To be fair, by Australian standards, Smart is not just a typical researcher. He’s a recognized expert in hypersonics who spent a decade at NASA before joining UQ ([3]), which is quite an uncommon profile. This prominence likely explains why he appears in nearly every source on ALV, sometimes tipping the balance on journalistic independence. HerBauhaus (talk) 18:31, 19 May 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 23:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singing candle

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

Looking through the history of this article, it seems to have been an art project by the Belgian Bains::connective (an archive of their website). Their website seems to be the only source that has ever been in the article, and the article's original illustration was sourced to that site too. As you can see from that image (and old versions of the article and site), the art project also seemingly made some concerningly fringe connection with psychology/telepathy. More to the point my WP:BEFORE failed to find any coverage in WP:RSs covering this either as a feedback demonstration or as an art project, and thus I can't see this meeting WP:GNG. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts, Science, and Belgium. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: You can seem to buy something similar on the various online stores, but I don't find sourcing we can use for notability. Whatever this stub article is, it has no sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, While it wouldn't be a reliable source, I would be interested if you could share such a listing, as everything I can see on online stores are candles (real or fake) that play music, as opposed to the subject of the article which is a feedback experiment which uses a loudspeaker connected to a light sensor to make interesting sounds (and is somehow telepathic?) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it's just Amazon and Walmart links to singing candles or birthday cards. Nothing useful here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or redirect to Rubens tube~~ - It's a cool idea but it's not a notable subject or artwork. Fails GNG. Netherzone (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or incorporate into another article. This stub has somehow survived almost 20 years with no references and no notable sources mentioning this specifically. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 21:22, 28 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Management and Science Institute, Colombo

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

No reliable sources except those by the same company. Appears to be purely promotional UtoD 18:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. UtoD 18:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:10, 28 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. Improvements to article quality and sourcing are always welcome regardless of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemical compounds with unusual names

AfDs for this article:

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

In the previous deletion discussions (dating back to 2004), there were comments that said this article should be kept as long as the problems are fixed, including some that said the "Other" section should be removed. It's now 2025, and there's still tons of unsourced entries and the "Other" section is still there, and it has a "multiple issues" tag with items dating to February 2022 and August 2017. This list is also fundamentally unencyclopedic, given that it provides no information other than that some people find the names unusual, and just because there are sources does not mean it should be included; see Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. All the promises have failed to be lived up to; time for it to go. It can always be recreated at any time once the problems are fixed. 123957a (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Science, and Lists. 123957a (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. I don't think this is significant and what constitutes unusual is not really defined unless we're saying anything not recognized by IUPAC which is an incredible number of compounds. It's normal to give chemicals memorable or even "weird" names because systemic nomenclature for large molecules is only useful for computers.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussions. Suggest we should start listing these at WP:PEREN after the 5th deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I know you actually agree with the previous discussions, but I'd like to remind everyone here to not vote "keep" solely because previous discussions ended in keep. Thanks. 123957a (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: While this isn't the worst list I've seen by any stretch, its criteria for inclusion are inherently subjective, culture-dependent, and frankly silly: "Some names derive legitimately from their chemical makeup, from the geographic region where they may be found, the plant or animal species from which they are isolated or the name of the discoverer"...how is that unusual? That's how newly-discovered species and minerals have been named for centuries. I can see this list having use as a fun trivia exercise to introduce people to chemistry, but that isn't what WP is for. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens, and the nominator could start cleaning up the article. Christian75 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's been tried. It hasn't worked. Also, most of the entries don't have a source and are just one Wikipedia editor's personal opinion of what is unusual, which is WP:OR. 123957a (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian75, sure, but according to wikipedia policy the burden is not on the nominator to improve an article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This just a childish collection of trivia. Virtually all chemical names are unusual in the sense that (mistakes apart) no two chemical compounds have the same name. Athel cb (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question Per WP:LISTCRITERIA, inclusion criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. Might those in favour of keeping this list explain how this requirement is met here? TompaDompa (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment references from the 5th nomination: "There are several reliable and independent sources listing these as chemical molecules with silly names. See "Molecules With Silly Or Unusual Names," by Paul May, published by Imperial College Press, 2008, ISBN-13: 978-1848162075. See also "Storyville: Molecular scientists have a word for it." The Independent on Sunday, Feb 1, 2004 by David Randall. He also finds amusing "Curious chloride" and "Moronic acid" from the Bristol University list. In many cases, the names were selected to be amusing or whimsical. A ref specifically saying that "arsole" has an unfortunate silly name is [4] "Chemical Cock-ups: A Story of How Not to Name a Chemical Compound Created" BBC, 13th April 2006. Then they in turn cite the Bristol site. The Royal Society of Chemistry makes fun of the silly name of Moronic acid at [5] in their Autumn 2005 newsletter. Another reliable and independent source listing some of these as having silly names is [6] "The New Book of Lists: The Original Compendium of Curious Information"(2005) By David Wallechinsky, Amy Wallace, page 203. Any entries which are not citeable to a reliable source which says it is a silly or unusual name can be deleted by the normal editing process."" Christian75 (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the above by Christian75 is convincing. WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the quote in the comment by Christian75. Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stockhausenfan According to Wikipedia policy, the burden of improving an article are not on the nominator. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonymousScholar49 Did you mean to respond to me? I was referencing this. Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per prior discussions, anyone is free to delete the entries that are unsourced or only sourced to the paper announcing the discovery in cases where the paper makes no mention of intentional humor. Christian75's listing of significant coverage of this immature topic is sufficient to retain this highly flawed article. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 15:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is 7th time and there are great explanations particularly 6th one and in other previous afds too. Change what is irrelevant, unverifiable and unsourced but it meets WP:V with WP:N. Per above sources - over-nominating this article here is not a great choice when you can simply edit unverifiable parts and explain that in summary of talk page. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:44, 2 May 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. Some of the comments in the last week imply a potential merge target, but none was given. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lyza

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

Fairly unremarkable other than a few published papers on a largely niche topic (tornadoes/severe weather). By this stretch, every meteorologist (especially many professors in academia) who author papers should have Wikipedia articles, which isn't the case. United States Man (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Science. United States Man (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Hate to say it but I agree that they just don't meet the bar of notability. I think instead of making new articles on meteorologists we should, as a project, work on improving the quality of existing articles; see the dreadful state of Ted Fujita, for instance. Departure– (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also say that the USA Today source doesn't mean anything for notability in my eyes. Lyza was brought on as an expert to explain the individual study about the same topic covered at EF5 drought. This is, in my eyes, as routine as coverage gets - especially his qualifications being described by USA Today as simply lead author on the new study about the EF5 tornado drought. It would be different if the article was specifically about Lyza, or if Lyza was described as being top of his field or otherwise academically vital. Departure– (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - enough sources to justify notability.

WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Several secondary reliable sources besides academic papers reference or interview/quote Anthony Lyza and his works, including the New York Times and many other articles: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Clearly passes the bare minimum of WP:PROF and WP:BIO, especially since the US government even posted he is a tornado “expert”. WP:PROF says if a person passes any of the listed items, then they are notable. The first point of WP:PROF is “The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” That seems clear, given the tons of sources discussing Lyza and his work. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Alabama, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
?. The subject has a very small number of citations in GS. What is the reason for this? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Small? This indicates he has 13 publications from 2017-2024, +1 not listed published in January 2025. So, he has at least 14 different publications that would be on GS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - The USA Today reference is the make-or-break for me here, as it does indeed show him being mentioned in major news outlets. — E_F⁵ 12:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GS gives 167 cites. Normally 1000+ cites is required for notability under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Oh! That is what you meant by not many GS citations. Most meteorologists use respective country-based academic publication societies, rather than GS to find sources. For example, in US is the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Just by looking at the AMS-website metrics alone for the 2025 paper that Mr. Lyza was lead author on ([15]) show 7281 full text views. AMS does not keep track directly of who cited the paper, only records of downloads and views. That paper has over 7,000 views just since January 2025 (it was released January 23, 2025). Hopefully that helps. AMS contains probably 80% of the meteorologically published papers that are often cited in textbooks or by other meteorologists. This is one of those fields of science where GS is actually not the most used/useful measurement tool. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after reading the above discussion. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are evenly divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears notable enough so it's not improper to include him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:ACADEMIC. He has a PhD, and you don't need a job at a university to be an academic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having a PhD is not mentioned anywhere as a criteria for notability. Departure– (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Source assessment table:

Source assessment table
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/15/us/severe-storms-could-bring-tornadoes-to-the-south.html	Just some quotes and mentions.	✘ No
https://www.snexplores.org/article/sneaky-dangerous-squall-line-tornadoes	Some small independent coverage on who he is, but after that, it's just quotes.	✘ No
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/weather/2025/03/07/ef5-tornado-drought-study/80476149007/	Only "[...], Lyza says" type of coverage.	✘ No
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/squall-line-tornadoes-forecast	Some small independent coverage on who he is, but after that, it's just quotes.	✘ No
https://fox11online.com/weather/weather-stories/its-been-3-decades-since-wisconsin-had-an-ef-5-tornado-are-we-due-for-another-oakfield-moore-oklahoma-enhanced-fujita-national-weather-service	Some small independent coverage on who he is, but after that, it's just quotes.	✘ No
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/me/maine/weather/2022/06/09/the-perils-project-storm-field-study-is-underway-in-the-south	Tony Lyza was the field coordinator for the project’s first year of data collection in the southeast. This is not significant coverage.	✘ No
https://whnt.com/weather/valleywx-blog/el-nino-la-nina-patterns-may-be-keys-to-predicting-tornado-outbreaks/	No significant coverage of him.	✘ No
https://weather.com/storms/tornado/video/11-year-ef5-tornado-drought-explained	Not a single mention of Anthony Lyza in the video.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Per my analysis, the sources presented in this discussion do not contain significant coverage of the person in question, hence he does meet WP:GNG which states that A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:NACADEMIC states that an academic is notable if The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. There is no evidence in independent reliable sources that their studies have had a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline." Additionally, he does not meet the rest of the criteria as set forth at WP:NACADEMIC. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight: I disagree entirely with your claim that "There is no evidence in independent reliable sources that their studies have had a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline." Numerous of the articles above are related to the EF5 drought study led by Mr. Lyza. In fact, Wikipedia has an entire section just about Mr. Lyza's study: EF5 drought#January 2025 study. Regarding the EF5 study led by Lyza, I can find [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. All of those sources are specifically in regards to the study produced by Lyza. Could you go into more detail and explain why ypu believe the EF5 study discussed by all of these RS do not provide such evidence? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What changed after they published their study? What "significant impacts" were there after they published their study? It's nice and all that the sources covered the study, but they don't provide evidence that it had a "significant impact" in "their scholarly discipline". For example, if there is evidence that this study led to a reform of the Enhanced Fujita scale in regards to rating tornadoes, or maybe something changed within the field of tornadoes, meteorology... that would fulfil the first criterion. But as of yet, it's probably too early to tell and it seems that most of the coverage is on the study than the authors themselves. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the EF5 drought is just a small trend in the greater subject of tornado climatology, so one study analyzing this subject in-depth wouldn't equate to "significant impact" across meteorology. Not yet, anyway. Departure– (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Departure–, while it is relatively benign with general meteorology (the NWS is likely choosing to ignore it), the general public and public media have definitely picked up on it. But yes, the Lyza drought study isn't super significant in the field, mainly outlining the reasoning, which is already well-known (survey ignorance). — EF5 ^(questions?) 16:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under that logic, the shift focuses from academic notability to public interest and we run back into GNG arguments again. While the EF5 drought is notable and Lyza's study of it helps demonstrate that, it doesn't itself make Lyza himself notable. Departure– (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not pass WP:NPROF nor WP:GNG (see table above). --hroest 20:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - our usual rules for citations works about as well for meteorological purposes as the EF-5 standard, which is to say, not very well. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the general rules of WP:NPROF should apply here just as well, for example "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." should apply to meteorology as to any other discipline. Maybe your argument is that the independent reliable sources here should not be Google Scholar but something else? --hroest 15:29, 5 May 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. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 09:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology

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

Non-notable journal published by a predatory publisher that has not been discussed in any capacity by independent sources and is not indexed by any selective databases. There was some previous discussion regarding the journal (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Archive_6#Keep_or_delete_this_journal?) but it has since been delisted from MEDLINE (NCBI) and Index Medicus (MIAR) with little fanfare. -- Recon rabbit 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Science. -- Recon rabbit 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I debated with myself whether a redirect to Predatory publishing or Beall's list is a reasonable alternative, but I think a K.I.S.S. deletion is simplest. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could only see redirecting being appropriate if American Scientific Publishers was a blue link. List of MDPI academic journals exists after all. -- Recon rabbit 15:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the independent sources (about its predatory nature/delisting) provide the significant depth of coverage needed for WP:GNG notability. WP:ITSUSEFUL to have a page warning us that this is not a high-quality journal but that's not an adequate reason for a keep, and there is no likely redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's stated here that the journal Ceased publication in 2021, which seems to be accurate based on the fact that their website also has no new articles after December 2021. Nobody (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I don't often use the word "strong" before either keep or delete, but here I strongly feel that this discussion is going in the wrong direction. This journal was included in Scopus from 2001 to 2017. That alone we usually take as sufficient to establish notability. It was also included in the Science Citation Index Expanded from 2002 to 2019. There was an expression of concern that the journal had been guilty of citation stacking in 2017, but apparently they cleaned up their act in the next year (current reference 5). Again, listing in the SCIE of almost the complete run of the journal (discontinued in 2021) is generally taken as sufficient evidence of notability. And then there is MEDLINE in which the complete run of the journal was "selectively included", as well as in its even more selective sub-database Index Medicus. Again, this alone we usually take as evidence of notability. Finally, notability is not temporary, so the fact that the journal was discontinued is immaterial. BTW, as an aside: our article states that the journal "was delisted from Web of Science in the 2019 index,[5] after having received an expression of concern a year earlier." In fact, the expression of concern explicitly states "The Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology did not show evidence of anomalous patterns of citation in 2018 and will not be suppressed. Similar analysis of year-to-date 2019 indicated no continuation of the citation anomalies, so that the journals will not be removed from indexing in Web of Science at this time." --Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't certain about the original nomination because of the implication that it was at some point in the past indexed by Index Medicus, but the lack of information on MIAR and the generally negative slant of the article, short as it is, placed me in the position of nominating this for deletion. That and endorsement by other editors. The evidence here is convincing of the "selectively indexed" criteria. I withdraw my personal reasoning for deletion, particularly with the scopus indexing I missed but as there are others that have recommended deletion this won't be a close. -- Recon rabbit 01:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss the strong evidence presented by Randykitty.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the reasons cited by Randykitty. Notability is not temporary. Although WP:NJOURNAL is an essay, the topic in this article meets WP:JOURNALCRIT criteria #1 because it was included in selective citation indices (i.e., Scopus and Science Citation Index Expanded). - tucoxn\^talk 15:03, 27 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 06:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per reasons already mentioned above, but make it clear it is still a stub as it will need a little bit more work to become a more complete article (for example, by adding the mentions of predatory publishing and other shadyish practices). Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the reasons given by Randykitty. Since the subject of this article has been included in Scopus and Science Citation Index Expanded, it meets the notability requirements stated in WP:JOURNALCRIT criteria 1.--DesiMoore (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per arguments above. BD2412 T 18:14, 29 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

Flow arrangement (via WP:PROD on 17 January 2025)
Reiner Kümmel (via WP:PROD on 16 January 2025)
Measure (physics) (via WP:PROD on 7 December 2024)
Evolution equations in high-energy particle physics (via WP:PROD on 4 December 2024)

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Deletion Review