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 Regeneron Science Talent Search#1949–present. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matteo Paz

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

Undergrad whose only claim to notability is winning the Regeneron Science Talent Search. By concensus, this does not qualify him for a pass of WP:NACADEMIC, high school awards are excluded. While winning the award has some news writeups, this fails as a single event (WP:BLP1E) without evidence for sustained coverage (WP:SUSTAINED). This is particularly the case since the scientific publication describing the code that won him the award has received no citations according to GScholar; the wider scientific community has so far voted with silence. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Regeneron Science Talent Search#1949–present – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with that. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. We shouldn't have articles on teenagers, unless they're clearly notable, for more than a single news event, such as a performing artist. Bearian (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, or delete. Subject is not yet sufficiently notable, but perhaps eventually. Praemonitus (talk) 17:45, 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 keep‎. Despite some poor argumentation, I see clear consensus here that there is too much material for either of the proposed mergers to be workable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of the metre

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

Redirect to History of the metric system, merging small amounts that aren't essentially duplicated or better covered there.

This article is functionally a fork of History of the metric system, which includes pretty much everything this article might if fully developed. This article's also exceptional; we don't have "History of" articles for other units like the kilogram, second or ampere.

The forking is something of a wiki-historical accident; this article began as "Redefinition of the Metre in 1983", a redefinition in terms of the speed of light which at least one editor thought very foolish. This article may have been created to corral that issue but long arguments about it continued across many articles leading to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, this article narrowly survived an AfD but its scope was soon expanded to History of the metre, and activity on this article died down. Meanwhile History of the metric system was created, continued to be developed, and was a GA until recently. It already has much well-written well-sourced content about the history of the metre itself and its context, but broadly speaking without the digressions that this article has sometimes included.

As this isn't a new article, it seems (I've not done this before) that WP:ATD-R applies: discuss on talk page first, but if consensus is lacking, go to AfD for discussion with the wider community. Opinion at History of the metre#Redirect to History of the metric system? was divided 2:2 and so though long discussion there just might reach unanimity either way, it seems better to come here as WP:ATD-R's preferred venue. NebY (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Science, Engineering, and Technology. NebY (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should be merged to Metre#History of definition, not redirected to History of the metric system. I actually don't see much duplication between the two history articles at all, I see two distinct topics with very different content. There is a lot of metre-specific history that isn't tied to the metric system as a whole and this could even be expanded. Much of History of the metre#From standard bars to wavelength of light would be out of place at History of the metric system. But for now at least, metre is relatively short and so its history could be merged there, if not kept separate if expanded. I agree with StarryGrandma on the talk page. Reywas92^Talk 03:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both history articles mentioned in nom and by reywas. Good arguments made, and Im always happy to see the metric "system" get a thumping. Metallurgist (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. Regardless of the reason History of the metre was created, historically the meter holds a special place in the metric system. Indeed, the other unit of the historical system, the kilogram was originally defined using the meter. Here is a link to a source p. 14. Metric System does not take that in account and gives explainations which correspond to the International System of Units (SI). The second was only added to the system following a proposal by Gauss in 1832 to base a system of absolute units on the three fundamental units of length, mass and time (see Centimetre–gram–second system of units). Charles Inigo (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Why are we even having this discussion? When we had the 'vital articles' rating system, what would this be at? A 2? Even a 1?

The history of the metric system is huge, an article like this is entirely appropriate. Especially given that the historical context of the metric units for length and mass are so different, the length standard itself having driven huge advances in Earth geodesy. This wasn't the British Imperial system where they simply sat down one day to arbitrarily define each and every unit according to some convenient aspect of the king, the metric system of 'just basing the metre on the size of the Earth' then needed the first serious efforts to measure the size and shape of the Earth itself.

This is just the sort of article that WP should (and seemingly can) deliver good content on. Back in the days when Wikipedia was 'that place that made the internet not suck', this was the type of article that made it so. Now we just seem more concerned in finding pointless reasons to make WP worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is a massively notable topic of obvious and utmost importance in the history of physics. Sources dedicated to the topic are abundant [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] The metric system is a wider and different topic than the metre, and a merge on either History of the metric system or Metre would make the articles unwieldy long. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's more detail here than is appropriate for history of the metric system, and merging with metre would overwhelm that article with historical information. There's certainly scope for three separate articles, here, just as, e.g., France, History of France and History of Europe are separate: the three articles have different focus and different levels of detail. Dricherby (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Keep as a redirect. Cameremote (talk) @gonisulaimann 22:22, 13 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 keep‎. No support for deletion. Owen× ☎ 14:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dietrich Stephan

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Management, and Science. MediaKyle (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep . The sources are weak, one failed verification (marked) and some claims such as "co-founded 14 biotech companies" are unverified. However, with an h-factor of 71 (now added to his page) I have to reluctantly conclude that he probably passes WP:NPROF. It is a weak keep because most of his citations are team papers, and I do not see evidence of awards. N.B., I also added an academic page in External links. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:NPROF Monhiroe (talk) 08:01, 6 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]

Weak Keep. I removed a promotional statement and changed a number of aggrandizements. Still needs work; it’s not a great article - but the subject does seem to meet WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a draft for replacement content in the talk page. I haven't had chance to review it, but thought it was worth noting. Encoded Talk 💬 08:27, 13 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

(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 [6] 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]

Comment I don't see any text worth merging. It's all uninspired prose, backed by mediocre/unsuitable sources. What's good enough to save? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Since our earliest days, we have not published original content; "made up in a day" and "no AI, thank you" are just by-products of that basic rule. This would at a minimum have to be started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. yes, we exclude things made up on Wikipedia, but not things made up in the real world and published there. Everything is made up at some point, Marxism, Christianity, theory of relativity. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Amy Webb, as it seems to be an idea of hers that can be described using reliable sources, but it doesn’t seem to have much of an existence independent of her. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:17, 20 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]

Merge selectively to Amy Webb per Suriname0 and Barnards.tar.gz. There doesn't seem to be enough coverage to justify its own article. Some of the Overview section can be merged using the Inc. source at least. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be a fad concept not published in reliable journals, per other above comments. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:47, 22 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 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 [7] and [8]). 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: [9]. 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.

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