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

Nano-I-beam

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

COI page where the only on-topic source (DOI:10.1038/s41598-019-53588-2) is the originators own paper which has 10 citations since 2019 according to GS. None of the other sources are on topic, and most of the page is either on standard nanotubes or macroscopic beams (some careful reading is needed). This type of advertising of an editor's own work is not what Wikipedia is for. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is very carefully disguised puffery of a single paper (Elmoselhy 2019), which has been cited all of twice by PubMed-indexed journals (Google Scholar's higher number isn't surprising, they index all kinds of junk). The other references cited are all about other topics, such as structural I-beams used in construction, all trying to inflate the importance of this one rather obscure research article. I have no patience for this kind of thing. If there's ever a comprehensive review article on nano I-beams, maybe we can have an article. But until then, WP isn't for boosting one's CV. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: From the article the following sources (given the number they have in the article as proposed for deletion) - 1 (can be fully accessed with the wikilibrary), 4, 9, and 10.
Of these neither 9 nor 10 discuss nanobeams or nano-I-beams, at best they discuss nano-tubes.
Source 1 is on methods of analysis and does mention nanobeams. However using a graphic from a review of modelling and analysing nanostructures, I believe that nanobeams are a larger category that may also include Nano-I-beams. Hence I don’t think 1 conveys notability.
This leaves 4, which seems to meet the criteria such that it could help convey notability, but as previously mentioned it is barely cited. Finally I found another scientific paper, from the same author as 4, which could convey notability, but is cited even less.
I therefore conclude that while 2 sources exist that could convey notability, they don’t actually do so due to how little notice/use they have had from the scientific community (reflected in how little they are cited). Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 14:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons described above.--Srleffler (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotion of non-notable work. Incidentally, the work being promoted was published in Scientific Reports, which is not a journal we should take seriously. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:40, 14 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. 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 [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]

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]

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