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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Technology. DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Physics, Ldm1954 (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete - what are you suggesting should happen? Christian75 (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nom that the term is rarely used. It refers to the effect in which an emf is induced by a time-varying magnetic field. (see [1] and [2]). It is usually discussed in electrodynamics textbooks under the topic Faraday's law of induction. Given this, I propose that we merge to Faraday's law of induction, and create a redirect from the more common term, transformer emf, to that page. The coverage at the target article should also be expanded. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added discussion about transformer emf to Faraday's law of induction. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformer. There is nothing useful in this article to merge, it is high-school physics without sources. The name is not in common use, and I suspect is a literal translation from another language. It seems to have been created much earlier in WP history when the policy about what to include and verification was more open. I would also be OK with a simple delete, as a Google search mainly brings up pages on Transformer-syle robots. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformer, as there is not any brilliant prose or even cited content worth preserving via merge. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically, transformer seems like a wrong target. In those sources that care to define "transformer effect", e.g. this, it includes any effect from changing magnetic flux to a stationary circuit, similar to transformer emf. In particular, it includes the interaction between a circuit and a moving magnet, which is unrelated to what happens in a transformer. That's why I suggested Faraday's law of induction above. If we decide that it generally does not have a well-defined meaning, then we should delete it or link to Electromagnetic induction, which is the broadest article in the topic area. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with either of those as redirect destinations. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inductance#Mutual inductance, where Mutual induction also redirects. In 2006 the first sentence of the first version of this article read The Transformer Effect, or Mutual Induction, describes one of the processes by which an electromotive force (e.m.f.) is induced. So it was meant as an article on what we usually refer to as mutual induction. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:45, 26 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely redundant to Newtonian fluid and (more generally) Linear elasticity. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't verify the only source on the page, thus making it original research, and it appears to be a fork of at least one other article. I took some physics courses in college, and taught secondary school physics two years in a row, yet never once have seen this phrase. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - this stub says ”a material is said to be ‘Newtonian’ if it exhibits a linear relationship between stress and strain rate.”. Does a stress/strain relationship apply to fluids, Newtonian or not? Thanks. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bit off topic, but @A. B. to answer your question, see Newtonian fluid, Non-Newtonian fluid, Viscosity#Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids and a stack of other articles in a Search Ldm1954 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons articulated above: as written, this is a dictionary definition, but trying to fix it up into an encyclopedic article would just be making even more redundancies with existing articles. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:05, 26 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Japan. JMWt (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Japan Society of Applied Physics Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From a quick check in 2004 it had ~2000 members which for me is big enough. I added a couple of sources, from Google there is a bit more but I think this is enough for a WP:HEY pass as a stub. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the main society seems fine. I ran it through here [4], hoping a history of the org would show up, no such luck Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. I had no problem finding sources for the history using simple Google -- I added some. To me any scientific organisation with 2000 members, one general journal, one membership journal, connections to other comparable societies in other countries should be a Speedy Keep (particularly in light of WP:BEFORE). Ldm1954 (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- as an ATD, adding it to the Japan Society of Applied Physics would help add context for both articles.Lorraine Crane (talk) 00:07, 26 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 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]

Redirect to Mechanical equilibrium, the article that already covers the idea. I don't see any prose so brilliant that it must be preserved by merging. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mechanical equilibrium, that is an ideal option. That page covers everything in this page far, far better.Ldm1954 (talk) 16:39, 24 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

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