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 MediaKyle (talk | contribs) at 11:16, 1 July 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dietrich Stephan.). 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 keep‎. No support for deletion. Owen× ☎ 14:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dietrich Stephan

Dietrich Stephan (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)

This article was clearly the subject of sustained promotional editing for quite some time. No progress has been made on the article since the fat was trimmed, and looking into it myself, I can only find routine coverage discussing his appointments, and one interview. I don't believe there's enough sources here to actually build an article upon. MediaKyle (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:46, 8 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.

Living Intelligence

Living Intelligence (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)

There is inadequate sourcing to establish notability for this concept, which can probably best be summed up (albeit rather uncharitably) as "big picture LinkedIn-style thought leadership"—or, even less charitably, it is a thing someone made up but for business executives.

The HBR source, the AOL (which syndicates Motley Fool, and is a transcript of a video interview) and the 'Future Today Institute' source aren't independent of the author who originated the concept. A brief web search identified a few other pages that are broadly in the same genre.

The Hesham Allam source cites a wholly different source for an idea referred to as 'living intelligence' (namely someone called Anna Bacchia) that predates the FTSG/Webb/Jordan formulation. It is also mentioned only in passing—not significant for the purpose of the notability guidelines.

The Robitzski source predates the invention of the concept, and thus does not do anything to establish notability.

The 'Analytics Insight' source looks extremely unreliable. According to their bio, the author of the piece "excels at crafting clear, engaging content", apparently. Last week, on Friday, they produced seven articles for 'Analytics Insight' in one day, on topics as wide-ranging as staying at the top of Google search results, knowing the difference between OLED and QLED televisions, the best travel credit cards, discounts on Android phones, smart mattress covers, and using AI to generate video. An optimist might commend this industrious work ethic; cynics might draw the conclusion that this feels like a low quality content farm (the massive flashing adverts for ropey looking cryptocurrencies don't help).

The Nature source discusses "living intelligences" and tries to draw up some philosophical basis for distinguishing machine and biological intelligence. It is not discussing the same thing.

The Inc. article by Aiello does look to be reliable, and independent, and provides significant coverage, but probably isn't enough alone as "multiple sources are generally expected" (WP:GNG).

There was another source listed which I removed. It's generated by Perplexity AI. Literally, just AI generated text. It's here (and on the Wayback Machine, but the overuse of JavaScript makes that version unusable). It is pretty much a case study of AI confabulation.

The AI generated text reads: Amy Webb and Gary Marcus, two prominent figures in AI research and forecasting, offer contrasting perspectives on AI's trajectory in 2025. Webb predicts a convergence of key technologies, including AI, biotech, and advanced sensors, leading to what she terms "living intelligence". At this point, there is an inline footnote which points to an article titled The great AI scaling debate continues into 2025 from a website called The Decoder. Said article does not discuss "living intelligence" or Webb. The Decoder article talks about Gary Marcus and AI scaling, so the AI generated source is at least half right. To be fair, the Perplexity source does go on to point to a podcast interview which... might establish notability if you squint a bit.

So, in terms of sourcing that establishes notability, we have an Inc article and a handful of podcasts/interviews. But the convergence of AI-generated text and the somewhat spammy promotion of futurist/thought leadership suggests this should be deleted (or possibly merged/redirected into Amy Webb). —Tom Morris (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Technology. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also pinging User:BD2412 as the AfC reviewer. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as, indeed, "a thing someone made up but for business executives." Honestly, anything made with "sources" from Perplexity or other slop machines should be deleted on moral grounds. They're the opposite of reliable; using them is by definition not being here to build an encyclopedia, and the results should be treated accordingly. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per last user, WP:MADEUP, and the use of AI-generated sources, which is a flaming red line for me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep or restore to draft. I was pinged to this discussion and am mulling this over carefully. I don't think that Amy Webb being the coiner of the term is disqualifying of a source for which she is the author. It's not like she's selling "Living Intelligence" as a product for her enrichment. She is an academic in the field, and her opinions in the field carry weight. I have never seen Harvard Business Review questioned for its reliability. With this along with the Inc. article, I would expect that if this is a notable concept (and the article describes something that certainly should be), then additional sources may be found. BD2412 T 01:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this. Two points: the Harvard Business Review do publish sponsored content on behalf of corporate partners. Some of which is emabrassingly mediocre research that would get a failing grade as student coursework. The source in question doesn't seem to fall into this category, thankfully.
    Also, at risk of being excessively cynicial, the thinktank/thought leadership world are selling a product. Taking a vague trend of New Stuff, and self-publishing a report that gives it a label is exactly what goes on in futurist/thought leader circles in order to promote yourself so corporations and others will pay you for consulting and speaking gigs etc. I drew an analogy with WP:MADEUP becuase hand-wavy futurist thought is often "a PDF of a thing I made up on my own website" rather than getting subjected to peer review. Whether the idea actually is notable is a question for other people to determine, hence why our notability guidelines look to independent sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Amy Webb being the coiner of the term" is "disqualifying" of any source that she wrote, insofar as it means those sources are the opposite of independent. A source that Webb wrote isn't completely useless for all purposes, but it carries zero weight in evaluating the notability (in the Wikipedian sense) of the concept.
    To paraphrase Tom Morris' second paragraph above: a label is a brand is a product. We absolutely should treat a thinktank/thought-leader person writing about their own label in the same way that we would treat a business owner writing about their own business. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These concerns are not alien to me, which is why I would support restoration to draft as a WP:ATD. BD2412 T 03:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Confused about the Perplexity AI issue address above but not sure if it matters. I did find this from The Week but that only makes two if you take Inc. into consideration. I would not fully discount the HBR just because she is the coiner of the phrase; however, being that there is not a lot of other references talking about it, I am not sure we can consider her the expect on the topic either.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or draftify? Discuss.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: More than a trivial amount of coverage in journals [1] discusses the concept. I suppose we could draft this for clean up, but the topic appears notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b: In the nomination statement, I already explained how the Rouleau and Levin article isn't relevant. The Nature source discusses "living intelligences" and tries to draw up some philosophical basis for distinguishing machine and biological intelligence. It is not discussing the same thing. Rouleau and Levin are not using "living intelligences" in the way Webb and Jordan are, and it does not establish that Webb and Jordan's formulation is notable. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, it was getting kind of long and I gave up reading it. Would it be worth draftifying it? I can't understand the "thing" the article is about ... Oaktree b (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm broadly open to all options: delete, draftify or merge and redirect to Amy Webb. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources identified by Oaktree b and CNMall41. I think we now have enough to meet WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding The Week. The quotes in The Week are derived from the HBR and Inc articles, and the FTI report. The second paragraph is mostly quotes from the HBR article. The third, fifth and seventh paragraphs mostly consists of quotes from the Inc article. The fourth paragraph quotes from the report. The sixth paragraph is a pointer to a blog post by another futurist consultant pitching for work that concludes with "Let's discuss your strategy for shaping this future, reach out to discuss." The Week has been discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in 2020, and the observation their that articles "are composites of pieces from elswehere" still rings true. An illustration of this: this article about "how generative AI is changing the way we write and speak". It is a composite that cobbles together a piece from The Atlantic, The Verge, The Conversation and Los Angeles Magazine without really adding much. It's not quite churnalism, and it is not merely aggregation, but it isn't great. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Amy Webb - This topic seems like it can happily live as a subsection on Amy Webb until it gets sufficient independent coverage to motivate its own article. Not opposed to draftification, but merging seems like a better editorial outcome here. The concept has no coverage that doesn't prominently feature Webb. Suriname0 (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any support for a merge to Amy Webb?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Ivitskiy

Igor Ivitskiy (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)

Page on a young Materials Scientist which claims that he is a mathematician, but has only published on polymers. According to this page he was in the Department of Chemical, Polymer and Silicate Engineering described here. While there are claims that he is a Professor, the relevant staff page does not currently verify this. Page makes many claims, for instance 200 scholarly works but he only has an h-factor of 13. (An h-factor of 13 is at about the level of a senior postdoc in Materials Science, to at most a starting assistant professor. If he was truly a mathematician then an h-factor of 13 might be acceptable.) Page has major refbombing and a fair amount of peacock. No indications of anything close to a pass of WP:NPROF on any count, or any other notability criteria. Page was previously PROD by nom, then indirectly challenged by Jars World here. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:NACADEMIC: The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level, which in Ivitskiy's case is the President of Ukraine’s Prize for Young Scientists. Antoine le Deuxième (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but lean Keep. Mostly commenting that "Young X" awards don't contribute towards WP:PROF notability when they're at the High-School, College, etc. level; they DO contribute, however, when "young" means post-doctoral and early-mid-career level. This one was earned around age 29, so looks more like the later, and can fairly be considered a WP:PROF pass; but the citation count, etc. just doesn't fully pass the "smell-test" expected if the award were really that prestigious, hence staying neutral. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With apologies Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert, but I think you are misreading WP:NPROF#C2. The text in the notes is quite clear that these need to be major, senior awards. Examples would be the named awards from major national or international societies, in his case an example would be one of the awards of the European Federation of Chemical Engineering, as that is his PhD and academic research field (not mathematics). Junior or mid career awards indicate good progress, but alone rarely to never qualify at AfDs I have seen, particularly outside of mathematics. Since his citations are weak there is not a cumulative pass with a synergistic combination. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG, young scientists' awards, and the overall good media coverage, I would count awards by the president and the government as the notability check for living people, thus proving they pass GNG.--Killviconiborki (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject meets WP:NACADEMIC through the President of Ukraine's Prize for Young Scientists, a prestigious national academic honor. Combined with his work at the National Academy of Sciences, and other stuff this more or less meet notability criteria. Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 14:48, 10 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 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.
  • [2] - this doesn't exist. Glaringly, it doesn't exist at the claimed accessdate, 2025-06-02. [3]
  • [4] - 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, [5]), 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".
  • [6] - this doesn't exist. Same story with the archive [7]
  • [8] - 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: [11]. 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 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=1298255947"