Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grapesurgeon (talk | contribs) at 00:22, 26 June 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On My Own Technology.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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 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 03:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On My Own Technology

On My Own Technology (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)

WP:NORG doesn't pass, no sigcov in article, and I suspect WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 3 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 redirect‎ to Hydrogen economy. without prejudice against a selective merge. I see a unanimous consensus against retaining the article, but views are split on whether any of the content can be merged into the proposed target. A decision on which content, if any, to merge is an editorial one that can be discussed on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 18:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen strategy

Hydrogen strategy (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)

Previously draftified by me and PRODed by @Clayoquot:, but contested.

PROD rationale: At least 3 sources in this article are fake: https://www.iea.org/reports/hydrogen-strategies , https://www.irena.org/solar/Hydrogen , and https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-net-zero-industry-green-hydrogen/ . A previous version of the article was reverted for being LLM generated, see User talk:HydrogenEagle.

The article remains fundamentally unverifiable due to the method of its creation, with obviously fictitious references and questionably true information. ~ A412 talk! 17:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merge into Hydrogen economy. The objectionable sources and content has been removed and new sources have been added. Reliable sources use the term "hydrogen strategy" in way consistent with the use in the article. I do not see any reason for deletion that can be used to eliminate this topic. I think merge is the best solution because a notable topic like this can be resurrected in future. By merging we know where to look.
Johnjbarton (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the topic is notable. I'm arguing that the current version is so fundamentally unsalvageable (for concerns of references being not read by the author, being cited for things they don't say, or being entirely fictitious, and thus failing WP:V) that it shouldn't exist in mainspace, so either a WP:DRAFTIFY or a WP:TNT delete. ~ A412 talk! 18:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think your assertions would be more convincing if you provided specific examples. Here are some examples of government documents discussing the article topic by name:
Per WP:DELETE, Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have an article at this title, my argument is that this version is unsalvageably bad and should be deleted because improving it would require a complete rewrite, as per WP:TNT.
Let's look at some specific examples from the current version. I'll use the North America subsection.
  • [1] - this doesn't exist. Glaringly, it doesn't exist at the claimed accessdate, 2025-06-02. [2]
  • [3] - This exists, but there is substantial content in the body text that cannot possibly be cited to here. For example, the "National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap" is not referenced at this source, (for the record, this does exist, [4]), and the source provides no specific numbers to back up the claim of "10 Mt production by 2030, 20 Mt by 2040, and 50 Mt by 2050".
  • [5] - this doesn't exist. Same story with the archive [6]
  • [7] - This doesn't exist. The URL resolves, but notably does not mention hydrogen.
~ A412 talk! 18:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, some of the reports cited do in fact exist if you search for them by name, but under different URLs, and in at least one case, under a completely different site. Is it possible that the references were actually read by the author, who consistently misenters nearly every reference URL? Maybe. Is the far more likely explanation that the references are generated by language model? To me, yes. ~ A412 talk! 18:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I rewrote it completely. I could had a bit more with a few examples, say EU and Japan. Rather than get all worked up about this article it seems to me we need to work to avoid a repeat. Merge would be a start as would agreeing to topic ban for the editor responsible for the mess. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a ChatGPT version of the Hydrogen economy article. Angryapathy (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your evidence for this claim? Johnjbarton (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the topic is probably notable, every source I checked was a dead link or did not support the cited claim, as another user noted. This has all the calling cards of an LLM-written article: The vague, general language; the references that don't exist or don't say what they're cited for; the bullet-point-heavy organization. But frankly the dead citations alone are reason enough for deletion IMO; if the author can't be bothered to check their URLs, why should we be bothered to keep their refbombed-to-the-stone-age article? Let someone who actually cares enough to check their sources write a new article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete immediately, given that some references are fake. How can we believe any of this? --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Only a few are "fake". Make your own count. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok almost all of the journal citations were fake. The linked ones were ok which threw me off. I guess I should have known from green hydrogen Johnjbarton (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Hydrogen economy (first choice) or delete. Johnjbarton did a great job of removing the LLM-generated crap and replacing it with a reasonably WP:V and WP:NPOV passage. The sheer number of hallucinated references makes it clear that none of the original content can be trusted. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since nothing created in the bowels of an AI slop factory can be trustworthy, and nothing suggests that this is a sufficiently distinct topic that needs an article of its own. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The criteria for article inclusion is spelled out in detail in Wikipedia:Notability. This topic has significant reliable coverage in secondary sources independent of the topic.
    • Andrews, J., & Shabani, B. (2014). The role of hydrogen in a global sustainable energy strategy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 3(5), 474-489.
    • COAG Energy Council Hydrogen Working Group. (2019). Australia's national hydrogen strategy.
    • Esily, R. R., Chi, Y., Ibrahiem, D. M., & Chen, Y. (2022). Hydrogen strategy in decarbonization era: Egypt as a case study. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 47(43), 18629-18647.\
    • Vivanco-Martín, B., & Iranzo, A. (2023). Analysis of the European Strategy for Hydrogen: A Comprehensive Review. Energies, 16(9), 3866.
    • Nagashima, M. (2018). Japan's hydrogen strategy and its economic and geopolitical implications (pp. 12-75). Paris, France: Ifri. ISBN: 978-2-36567-918-3
    • Hjeij, D., Biçer, Y., & Koç, M. (2022). Hydrogen strategy as an energy transition and economic transformation avenue for natural gas exporting countries: Qatar as a case study. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 47(8), 4977-5009.
    • Meng, X., Gu, A., Wu, X., Zhou, L., Zhou, J., Liu, B., & Mao, Z. (2021). Status quo of China hydrogen strategy in the field of transportation and international comparisons. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46(57), 28887-28899.
    and so on. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources are now cited in the revised article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we don't need it, it doesn't exist as far as we can verify it, and it turns out to be a toxic dump of original content, AI content creation, and unreliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearian I just posted 6 WP:reliable sources to this topic beyond the ones already listed in the article. Did you find any problem with the sources now given? What basis do you have for any of your claims? Johnjbarton (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not clicking on anything associated with AI. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, once an article is infected with unreliable sources, it would need to start from scratch. I linked TNT for you. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you find any problem with any source in the article I will fix it. I have checked all four of them. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then how can you make any reasonable contribution here? I completely rewrote the article which you would be able to see if you read it. See also Wikipedia:TNTTNT.Johnjbarton (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the only remaining option is to Userfy it, work on it more, and then return it to main space. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already completely rewritten it. What else do you recommend having evidently never read it? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a good idea to userfy or draftify obvious AI-generated crap. It sends the message that using AI to create a first draft is an acceptable process as long as a human tidies up afterwards. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hydrogen economy. This couldn't be a clearer case for merging. Begin the merge by redirecting it, and see if anyone bothers to add any usable material to Hydrogen economy. Abductive (reasoning) 18:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If this has fake sources the article should be immediately deleted and the creator banned off. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been completely rewritten and has no fake sources. Check for yourself. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I just removed another one - a claim that "These plans are designed to achieve national objectives related to climate change mitigation, enhanced energy security, economic growth through the creation of new industries" citing a paper published in 2014. None of these plans existed until 2017. I think I got the last of the hallucinated references but the first sentence is still unsourced. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your removal of that source, please see Talk:Hydrogen strategy. It is peer reviewed, published as explicit review, and cited by 124 papers according to Google scholar. Nothing fake about it. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any useful content. Greglocock (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Greglocock If I understand your proposal, the current content would be merged but you would not agree that Hydrogen strategy should redirect to that merge point. Is that correct? Johnjbarton (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. hydrogen strategy is at best a neologism but seems too vague to me. Greglocock (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a strong opinion against userfication but I think trying to shoehorn a source into trying to supporting the (POV filled, OR) text is an error-prone endeavour that would likely carry over the POV and OR. For example, the disputed These plans are designed to achieve national objectives related to climate change mitigation, enhanced energy security, economic growth through the creation of new industries. was initially re-sourced to This paper reviews the role envisaged for hydrogen energy within the context of global and national ‘sustainable’ energy strategies, that is, strategies seeking to address climate change imperatives and guarantee energy security, which in my opinion was SYNTH (strategies in that quote more naturally refers to ‘sustainable’ energy strategies). Johnjbarton decided to look for another source, which does say Many countries issued their national hydrogen strategies to fulfill multiple strategic objectives, including but not limited to decarbonization. which loosely supports the sentence in question, but the next paragraph says Most hydrogen strategies have claimed that mitigation of climate change through the development of the hydrogen industry is among the desirable objectives they want to achieve. However, underneath the apparent universalism of “sustainability” or “carbon neutrality” goals is “an uneasy tension. Taken as a whole, I would put the overall tenor of the paper as more supporting how the framing (that used to be) in the article was dubious, than supporting the sentence, as it was framed, itself. Given that every part of the original article has proven itself entirely untrustworthy and in need of a rewrite, what point is there keeping any of the original phrasing; and then, if we're not keeping any of the original expression, what point is there keeping any of the history? I would for this reason lean towards a presumptive delete, without retaining any content to merge. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:12, 2 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 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: [10]. 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.

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=1297402475"