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 redirect‎ to Inductance#Mutual inductance or any other target. The consensus is fairly clear that the article should Not Be Here any more: I am going to make an editorial decision to pick one of the proposed targets; if anyone prefers one of the other ones, like Faraday's law of induction, Electromagnetic induction, or just transformer (or sections thereof like § Transformer emf or Electromagnetic induction § Electrical transformer) or even something not mentioned here, please feel free to address it through standard editorial processes (e.g., BRD, etc) or list it at RfD. I am declaring the exact target of redirects Not AfD's Problem, since there are other venues for that and there's not much discussing of it going on here any more anyway. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transformer effect

Transformer effect (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)

Mutual inductance and Inductive coupling already have much more information here. The transformer effect certainly is not the WP:COMMONNAME for this, either. DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Destinyokhiria 💬 12:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Mutual inductance: The original intent of the author of the WP article does not matter, especially when the assertion that "transformer effect" is synonymous with mutual induction is unsourced. It is more important how the term is used in the literature. L.V. Kite (1974) An introduction to linear electric circuits discusses mutual inductance and says The phenomenon we have discussed here is the is the transformer effect. It occurs in circuits which are fixed in position, and should not be confused with the related phenomenon known as the dynamo effect, which depends for its existence on relative motion. This does not yet tell us whether he considers transformer effect synonymous with mutual inductance or whether it is more general phenomenon. However, he also says later that self induction [...] is obviously an additional manifestation of transformer effect. Here's another source that considers self-inductance in connection with the transformer effect: [3]. This indicates that Mutual inductance is a narrower concept than the transformer effect. Anyway, this is such a niche term that I am not strongly opposed to Mutual inductance as a target if it helps closing the AfD, since mutual inductance does lead the reader to the general topic area. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:47, 6 July 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newtonian material

Newtonian material (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)

One line definition that is a weak duplicate of content in Newtonian fluid (and other, related pages). Nominated for a PROD by Weirdguyz on June 19th which I seconded on the same day. PROD & PROD2 removed by A. B. without any explanation beyond the statement recommend AfD. Hence now we go to an AfD for a page that also fails WP:NOTDICT. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 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 Japan Society of Applied Physics. Owen× ☎ 15:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optical Society of Japan

Optical Society of Japan (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 refs on the page for many years. I don't read Japanese but I'm not seeing sufficient RS to meet the inclusion standards. I'd be interested to see if others can find anything to discuss. JMWt (talk) 07:08, 19 June 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 redirect‎ to Mechanical equilibrium. Owen× ☎ 13:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced force

Balanced force (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 page reviewer said:

I was very tempted to move this page to draft as failing WP:TEXTBOOK with too much mild WP:Peacock and some WP:SYNTH, for instance including Newton's first law. Instead I did a quick clean. It may well still end up being challenged either with a PROD or at AfD because it is not fundamentally different from other, existing mechanics articles which are more extensive.

Creator is now indef blocked, so not able to work on it further. I am ambivalent as to whether this should be kept, deleted or redirected, but this decision needs input from subject experts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954:, the reviewer whom I have quoted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see the content of the article has nothing to do with the reason for the block. Let's get a couple of other opinions, and perhaps even some WP:HEY edits. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Force. Sushidude21! (talk) 10:34, 23 June 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 Draftify‎. as that's how I'm interpreting "delete as rescuable". Star Mississippi 02:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adsorption operations

Adsorption operations (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)

AfD to enforce draftification or delete. The article quotes heavily a single source which combines a range of standard surface science topics under a neologism of "adsorption operations". I don't think the originator realized that their source did WP:SYNTH. (As a card-carrying surface scientist I also see some gaps in the science described here.) Since they have already once overridden a draftification it needs to go to AfD for at least draftification. I will leave to the debate whether a delete as not rescuable is appropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as rescuable. We can definitely fix this article, I don't think it's quite article status, but definitely has the potential to be an article after improvement. Ev0308 (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Enforce draftification. If the draft expires it can be deleted at that time. Gjs238 (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing much in the way of references for the "Adsorption operations" neologism. The article contradicts itself moving from ions/molecules on surfaces to dust and smoke in the applications section. Summary seems to focus only on (ion-exchange) resin based methods of separation. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:35, 17 June 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. While there is a general agreement that specific notability guidelines, particularly WP:PROF have not been met, there doesn't seem to be an agreement on whether the general guidelines at WP:GNG have. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Woodward (physicist)

James Woodward (physicist) (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)

The WP:PROF, WP:GNG, and WP:NFRINGE considerations of this page makes me think that James Woodward is just likely not notable. None of the sources listed mention him seriously as a person and I question whether his fringe theory really is all that notable. Certainly his idea is not published reliably, but instead are in fringe journals, and there does not seem to be WP:FRIND sources available to the degree we would normally wish. When academics are supposed to be "notable" for the claims outside their field of expertise, it is an immediate WP:REDFLAG. I think this is not deserving of an article. jps (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete does not pass WP:NPROF. Note that there are at least two people with the same name, one which is the current subject with an h index of 10 and a second (history) professor at Pittsburgh with an h-index of 29. Therefore he doesnt pass NPROF#1 and given how little reception he gets inside academia I think it is hard to argue that he passes any of the points in NPROF. --hroest 13:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, I'm not going to be nice here. Sorry for being so confrontational, y'all, but it really feels like none of you even bothered to look up sources properly (other than the only other person who clearly did and then decided to vote Keep because they actually took the time to look). The guy's fringe, 100%. He's also definitely not a WP:PROF pass, 100%. However, the WP:GNG seems very clearly satisfied by multiple years of news coverage of his fringe-y work, not to mention scientific papers discussing his ideas or debunking them (even if some are written by other fringe-y credulists, they're still in proper journals) that addresses his claims as the main subject of the papers and not just as an aside.
This seems like an attempt to delete subjects entirely because they're fringe, without any regard for actual GNG notability standards. Which is, sadly, fairly standard for Fringe topic noticeboard regulars and there's been multiple cases where I had to come in and actually argue for our notability policies previously.
So, if we want to have a discussion about the sources that actually exist, most of which were easily findable from a Google search, then let's please do that. Rather than claiming there aren't any sources, which is easily debunkable. Being fringe pseudoscience doesn't mean non-notable. SilverserenC 02:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You think these sources pass WP:FRIND? I don't think so. jps (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are literally mainstream secondary sources, the kind that FRIND specifically talks about as what should be preferred. They aren't fringe specific media or sources. SilverserenC 21:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They don't look mainstream to me. The ones by journalists look like they are falling afoul of WP:SENSATION. The ones by ostensible scientists look like they are fellow WP:PROFRINGE personalities. jps (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Local newspapers and a science-fiction magazine are not going to be good sources for an article that's supposed to be about science. (Even the Guardian and the BBC have bungled it sometimes, running silly season stories about "local man says he can divide by zero" and such. One example is documented in Underwood Dudley's Mathematical Cranks.) Moreover, we're not debating whether to mention "Mach effects" in an article about the general topic of way-out-there spacedrive proposals. The question is whether a biography page for James F. Woodward needs to exist. There's potentially enough for the former, but after subtracting out the noise, there isn't for the latter. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the Choice Reviews item is a brief (248 words) paragraph saying that libraries shouldn't feel obligated to buy Woodward's book. The gist: "Historian/physicist Woodward (California State Univ., Fullerton) proposes a propulsion method that seems to contradict basic physics principles." And, other research "explains the errors of his experiments and points to results that show no extra field effects." A cursory dismissal of Woodward's publication is not evidence in favor of having an article about Woodward. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of what you said has anything to do with notability or WP:GNG. He is a fringe crank, yes. Sources covering him as a crank is a good thing in that regard. In fact, sources dismissing him and his ideas are exactly what we want for notability for a fringe topic, since that allows us to not only have coverage, but can also explicitly put that his views are nonsense. SilverserenC 22:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The general notability guideline requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Local newspapers and science-fiction magazines aren't reliable for this purpose. A trade journal for libraries is probably not the best bet, either, and one paragraph is not what I'd call "significant". Overall, Woodward falls into the case described at the end of that guideline. He doesn't "meet these criteria" as a person, but there are still "some verifiable facts" about his claims, which are best discussed "within another article". Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple pieces of significant coverage about him and his claims. Local newspapers only applies if they are all in the same local area (and generally if its actually an area local to the subject), so you don't have say someone in a single Kentucky county who keep getting coverage from county newspapers. That's not at all the case here, these newspapers have no connection with each other and are temporally disparate to boot, so it's not a single event burst of coverage either. Also, I have no idea what your addition of science fiction magazines has to do with that. Science fiction magazine are perfectly reliable and contribute just fine to notability as with any other magazine. Coverage of someone's statements and ideas is also coverage of them, so long as it isn't solely question and response interview coverage. SilverserenC 22:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fluff pieces aren't any better than "question and response interview coverage". Those news stories are fluff pieces. (The Kimberley Bulletin: "It's starting to look like interstellar travel may be possible in a time frame that may be manageable for human beings. [...] I'd explain the Mach effect in greater detail, but I barely understand it myself.") Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see you selectively picked that one, the weakest of the news pieces, while ignoring coverage like this that is a full page article that has much more detail. Specifically what the claimed theory is, what the machinery is he built and how it's supposed to work and, happily for me, criticism of his claims by other scientists and pointing out how his ideas are doubtful in their efficacy. It's good we have multiple sources, including Rodal's rebuttal academic piece up there, so we can clearly and directly state the fringiness. SilverserenC 22:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I picked the quote that made the fluff-piece nature obvious, in my view. The Edmonton Journal story is longer, but not better. In some ways, it's worse, because it plays up the false balance. It's yet another example of a genre with which all scientists grow familiar: "This maverick has an extraordinary claim! The so-called 'experts' think there's nothing to it... but who knows?!" It uncritically accepts Woodward's own framing that he had "good theory and good experimental data" and gives short shrift to the one independent critic (Don Page). The extra "detail" just drowns out the basic lack of substance.
The Orange County Register story is quintessential silly season. It quotes no critical voices at all. It flunks high-school physics by confusing Newton's first and third laws of motion.
Even the most generous reading of the available documentation only shows that this far-out fringe idea is not the most obscure of the far-out fringe ideas. I don't see the need to wrap the one-paragraph explanation of why it's a far-out fringe idea with another few sentences about where its originator was born and went to school. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your entire argument here seems to be classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT in regards to the fringiness. Yes, he's fringe, I've already repeatedly stated I agree on that. But that has nothing to do with notability. Him being a pseudoscience nonsense pusher is completely irrelevant to a discussion of notability. Your criticism of the sources seems to boil down to them not covering the subject in the way you'd prefer. It is not an argument that actually refutes the coverage meeting WP:GNG requirements. SilverserenC 23:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My criticism of the sources boils down to them being evidently unqualified to discuss physics. Newton's first law is not the same as Newton's third law! They're not reliable, and so they don't qualify towards any guideline that depends upon the existence of reliable sources. You can't make an encyclopedia article out of news clippings that are scientifically illiterate.
I'm not saying that articles about people known only for fringey things are bad. I'm not saying that an article about Woodward's fringey work would be bad. I don't think there's enough to write about it that an entire article would be warranted, and I don't see how the paltry amount that could be written is enough to hang a whole biography on. Under different circumstances, if different source material were available, I'd be defending the existence of the biography page, but as matters stand I just can't make the case for it. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My criticism of the sources boils down to them being evidently unqualified to discuss physics.
Is that an allowed factor enumerated on WP:GNG? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that guideline requires that the sources be "reliable", and news stories that do the physics equivalent of declaring the Earth to be flat, or setting up a false balance between antivaxxers and actual medicine... There's no way in good conscience to call them reliable, so how can they count towards the guideline? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note my !vote above.
I'm just saying, or asking, as that sounds like a much stricter definition than I've seen argued yet. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not even the venerable Acta Astronautica? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluating Woodward by the academic notability standard, one paper commenting on a person's work isn't enough to make that person notable (not by a long shot). It could contribute to the work being notable, or worth mentioning in an article on a broader topic. Since the author of the Acta Astronautica paper later co-authored a follow-up saying whoops, no "Mach effect" after all, relying on the 2017 paper would give a pretty skewed impression... On the whole, I think we can justify writing a little about the idea, but packaging that into a biography of the person just doesn't make sense to me. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply asking if there was any possible dispute that Acta Astronautica is not a reliable source. I can't see how but in bonkers once-a-century edge cases anyone would argue it's not WP:RS for anything aerospace related. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any reason not to suppose that Acta Astronautica is generally fine. (Of course, claims about spacedrives that rely upon fringe physics are just where one would expect those bonkers edge cases to arise. Engineers have been known to give a pass to wacky ideas from outside their specialty now and then. They might endorse creationism, dabble in crank math, etc. It happens. And all it takes is a couple referees willing to go "yeah, looks fine" to claims from outside their field for a paper to slip through the review process.) My only concern with relying on the Acta Astronautica item is that it's utterly commonplace for A to write a paper that cites B; one instance of that happening is insufficient justification to have an article about B. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was actually a ton of papers in Acta Astronautica about Woodward and his claims, I just didn't feel the need to include more than one example for the same journal. And the existence of that later paper increases his notability and makes it that much easier to point out that his claims are bunk. And it makes more sense to have an article on the person and not the effect, since the effect is bunk and should be kept as just a thing this one guy claims. Having a separate article on the effect would actually be giving it more perceived legitimacy. SilverserenC 23:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate that point of view. But wouldn't it make more sense to have a separate article on neither? Shouldn't we just have one moderately-sized page for all the related kinds of bunk? (Particularly since those papers do discuss the "Mach effect" and the EmDrive together [7], for example.) We have the page reactionless drive that could host a section about Woodward's "Mach effect". Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I'm being/coming across as more confrontational than a matter of article organization really warrants, so I'll wander off now and trust that the excessive number of words I've spilled already can convey my point. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just didn't feel the need to include more than one example for the same journal
As far as I'm aware, even if literally nothing but the New York Times covers you--and everyone else in media implausibly ignores you--a WP:SIGCOV in the times once a week for a month makes any of us article worthy, most likely.
If like ten authors wrote about this guy to SIGCOV in that journal, top 20% or so (IIRC) for aerospace, then this is super notable. Is that what you are saying? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I would agree. But there's some people that argue that sources from the same publication don't count separately toward notability, no matter the disparity in time or authorship. So that's why I usually focus on presenting a breadth of different sources, to better convince those with that opinion. SilverserenC 02:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Scoles, Sarah (August 2019). "The Good Kind of Crazy: The Quest for Exotic Propulsion". Scientific American: 58–65. JSTOR 27265292.
  2. ^ Oberhaus, Daniel (September 3, 2020). "Gravity, Gizmos, and a Grand Theory of Interstellar Travel". Wired.
  3. ^ Johnson, Stephan (September 7, 2020). "NASA-funded scientist says 'MEGA drive' could enable interstellar travel". Big Think.
  4. ^ Cruz, Sherri (May 21, 2013). "Woodward's Wormholes". Orange County Register.
  5. ^ Tajmar, Martin (2017). "Mach-Effect thruster model". Acta Astronautica. 141: 8–16. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.09.021.
  • Keep Per the first page of WP:NPROF, It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. With respect, all of the !votes that only cite to WP:NPROF without doing sufficient WP:BEFORE searches to determine if the subject passes WP:GNG strike me as quite deficient. Newspapers and magazines absolutely pass WP:SIGCOV, including the ones provided by Silver Seren. Show me where within WP:GNG newspaper or magazine coverage is precluded from grounding the notability of a person who has conspiratorial views and I will change my vote. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 13:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRIND and WP:SENSATION asks us to consider whether the newspapers and magazines are reliable enough to properly provide the context for fringe claims. In this case, these newspaper and magazine articles are breathlessly concluding that this "maverick scientist" is going to revolutionize the spaceflight industry. They apparently did not do their due diligence in finding independent experts who would at a moment's glance have informed them of the implausibility of it all. If we rely on those sources to write our article, Wikipedia would necessarily adopt a WP:PROFRINGE approach. In short, if there are no sources that look with a critical lens at a WP:FRINGE idea, we generally argue that an idea is not notable even if there are dozens of credulous sources to be found (fringe theories by their very nature tend to skew the sourcing standards). This applies equally to WP:FRINGEBLP, which is what this article absolutely must be. WP:GNG should only take over if, for example, there is serious coverage that goes beyond the fringe framing and the sourcing thus would not prevent a neutral article from being written. I don't see that here. jps (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this entire split guidance / standards expectations could do with some real-world examples somewhere that can be linked under some WP:PAGE link as an easy example for this on fringe.
Weirdly, I think the Christopher Mellon article we're both familiar with could a be prime baseline example. Like, go edit the full page--this link. Highlight everything from the entire UFO section--don't touch the sourcing/references section. Just in your draft delete the entire UFO section and preview it. Ignore any reference errors--you are not saving! It would be 1/3 shorter as an article, but he'd still sail past WP:GNG anyway. Examples like that--show the person is notable outside X angle. Having actual examples may be a lot easier to explain this. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a significant number of new sources have been introduced since most of the delete !votes, I'm relisting and will hand out a round of pings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 19:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist@Hannes Röst@Bearian@Như Gây Mê@David Eppstein, please take a look at the sources posted here since your !vote. Your updated opinions, whether a reaffirmation or an alteration of your original !vote, would be very helpful towards reaching a consensus on notability. Toadspike [Talk] 19:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a delete, but thank you. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you didn't address GNG or any sources whatsoever in your original vote above, does that imply that your delete vote should be generally ignored as irrelevant for the closer? SilverserenC 21:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a delete. If the strongest thing we can say about this fringe theory is "The effect is controversial", then we are still failing WP:FRINGE in giving WP:UNDUE weight to fringe theories and falling into both-sidesism instead of providing properly neutral coverage of the mainstream pov. Also, I tend to agree with the opinions above that local-newspaper coverage is often not reliable for fringe physics, and is not reliable in this case. (Reliability is always a function of both the source and the content; these newspapers may well be reliable for other topics but that does not make them reliable for everything.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article isn't about the fringe theory, it is about the person who made it up. Who is the one receiving the coverage. Multiple pieces of coverage, mind you, that are about debunking his claims or showcasing his fringe claims don't hold up to scrutiny. Notable coverage refuting a fringe person is still notable coverage regardless. You don't seem to attempt to actually address how WP:GNG is applied to articles at all. SilverserenC 20:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If what he is notable for is significant coverage of his fringe theories then we need to apply our standards for what constitutes significant coverage of fringe theories: sources that are reliably published and that cover this work of the subject with both depth and a point of view that sticks to the consensus of current scholarship. The newspaper stories that cover his work credulously are reliably published by our standards but are not scholarly and do not stick to the mainstream scholarly point of view, so they fail this test. If he were notable for something else like WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR then we could use our notability standard for that and then treat the fringe theories as a sideline (example: A. K. Dewdney), but we don't have the notability evidence that would allow us to handle it that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete (!voting because of the call for uninvolved editors to help form a concensus). Definitely not by WP:PROF standards, but does the total coverage of the theories, the theory's creator, weighed by the reliability/independence of the external sources add up to a GNG pass? It's not easy to say, but it looks like the answer is No even without taking into account any "extraordinary claims require..." rules. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Scientific American, Wired, and Acta Astronautica are WP:THREE clearly mainstream reliable sources that cover Woodward/his work in depth, and establish WP:GNG. I am sympathetic to arguments that local papers aren't the best coverage for something like this. WP:FRINGE's guidelines on sourcing want sources that are are outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself, which clearly exist here. It's original research to do much more picking and choosing of what reporting/journalism is "good enough". Eddie891 Talk Work 07:59, 23 June 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=1296606118"