Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Physics

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Physics. 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|Physics|~~~~}} 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 Physics. 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 May 2019) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Physics/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Physics

Maya Nasr

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

Postdoctoral scientist at Harvard with an h-factor of 6 and 420 total citations. While she has made a good start to her career, she is some distance from passing WP:NPROF. Some graduate-level awards, and some minor coverage; not close to WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. I suspect that in 10 years or so she will pass the bar for notability, maybe even a few years earlier, but now is way WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lebanon and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom. A highly successful subject who does not pass notability here. Lots of trivial mentions, primary sources, etc. used as sources which do not contribute to notability, and the article is largely a promotional showcase with a non-neutral point of view. There is a very real possibility that she will become quite notable in the future (but we are not a crystal ball). Just as a side note, the article was created by a single purpose account in 2022. GuardianH 21:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (sigh). This is one of the most well-written, helpful articles to not pass WP:N I've ever seen, I suggest that one principal editor retain a copy in user space or offline to safe the trouble of future recreation (Draftify is probably not an option since we're between 3-8 years from passing WP:PROF if I can use prior experience as a guide). But it's definitely not a WP:PROF pass at present -- agree with all of Ldm1954 and GuardianH assessments on overall notability. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Mscuthbert about this being the best written but non-notable article I've seen. I do hope an article will be warranted in due time. As above _{so below} 23:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe this article might squeak by WP:BASIC with two UPI Space Daily articles about the subject [1], [2] (need Proquest access to view) and a few paragraphs in an article written by a NYTimes reporter [3]. I have added these to the article. There are other references but I can't find editorial oversight so not sure if they count as reliable. I wouldn't characterize the article as written by an SPA account but rather a student who worked on several articles, although contributed most to this one. If the UPI Space Daily references count towards notability I'd !vote weak keep. Nnev66 (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom and above. Svartner (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you comment on the references added to the article? The statement "per nom and above" does not address them as they were added later. Nnev66 (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Chase

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

Graduate student in materials science with a few papers. No major awards, many years from a pass of WP:NPROF. PROD was contested by User:BorderlineRebel with unusual claims (see Talk:Zachary Chase), for instance that receiving graduate fellowships passes WP:NPROF#C2 and being on a student advisory committee passes WP:NPROF#C7. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. I can't find substantial coverage of the subject in an independent reliable sources: a lot of the sources are self published by Chase or by his school. —C.Fred (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPROF and WP:GNG – While the subject is clearly a promising early-career researcher, the article does not currently meet the inclusion standards of WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. The majority of sources are affiliated with the subject or their institution, and there is no sustained, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Awards and academic service, while commendable, fall short of notability thresholds without significant third-party recognition. Notably, the subject has expressed a desire to have the article removed, which should be taken into consideration. —BorderlineRebel 16:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Deletion. I am the subject of this article. While I appreciate the effort behind its creation, I do not wish to have a Wikipedia page at this time. I have conferred with other users and I believe the content does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF, and several aspects are either inaccurate or not properly sourced. I am formally requesting deletion in accordance with WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Zacharychase94 — Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC) — Zacharychase94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment, Zacharychase94 contacted me directly on my talk page (see the details there), and I suggested that he post here, so this is not a canvassed SPA. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subject request. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no reason not to honor the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, even without verification of the identity. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. Assuming good faith, a Wikipedia article at the beginning of an academic career can be considered more troublesome than it is worth. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Marston

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

AfD to enforce draftification as it is > 3 months. Page had significant LLM, and Scaling.ai thinks it still has. While he passes notability as APS Fellow, none of his career and awards are sourced. Original editor has poor track record, no indication of attempts to improve. If someone wants to edit so WP:HEY applies please do. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping of DMacks who suggested draftification. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference to confirm that he is president-elect of the American Physical Society. Non-controversial information (the year he graduated, for example) can be sourced to primary references. I think that any traces of AI-generated text are gone now. He's clearly notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that multiple editors have resolved the referencing problems. However, this still has strong traces of LLM, in that the bulk of it is just a list of his own publications with a description of each's topic, formatted as the usual LLM bold-slug three-bullet-point list. I have tagged the need for secondary refs discusing him rather than a CV-like publication list. I would actually rather remove that whole list, especially because it's got so much fluff ("innovations") and uncited/credulous commentary on some of their merits. Some of the original content was actually hallucinated references, emphasizing how non-viable it was at the time (but also how substantial and valuable the cleanup work of everyone else has been). AFD is not for cleanup, but DRAFTify seems to have a bright-line time-limit (via RFC)...obvious problematic LLM should not default to "live in mainspace until AFD forces someone's hand" when it's not noticed promptly enough. DMacks (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He's a fellow of the American Physical Society (2013), which by itself passes WP:NPROF. I have added some text and references to the article - none of which was generated by an LLM. It needs more details on his research, but that can come later. Qflib (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the academic notability standard is met in at least two ways (elected Fellow and also presidency of APS), and the problems with the text have been resolved through rewriting. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as DMacks (talk) indicated above, Wikipedia current has a problem with LLM. IMO we should not have articles with major issues such as hallucinations, that is a disservice to our readers no matter how notable the person is. As I indicated in my nom, the page needed major repair which has now been done, and I think it now passes by WP:HEY. While there may be changes in how LLM is handled in the future (many ongoing discussions), for certain this is not going to be the last LLM mess. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Redirects for Discussion

Physics proposed deletions