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

Igor Ivitskiy

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Engineering, and Ukraine. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As stated in the nom, this appears to be ref-bombed. I'm not convinced by the 30 or so links, my search doesn't bring up much of anything about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find social media, youtube... The name is too common to find anything about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On My Own Technology

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Science, Technology, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen strategy

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge into Hydrogen economy. The objectionable sources and content has been removed and new sources have been added. Reliable sources use the term "hydrogen strategy" in way consistent with the use in the article. I do not see any reason for deletion that can be used to eliminate this topic. I think merge is the best solution because a notable topic like this can be resurrected in future. By merging we know where to look.

Johnjbarton (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the topic is notable. I'm arguing that the current version is so fundamentally unsalvageable (for concerns of references being not read by the author, being cited for things they don't say, or being entirely fictitious, and thus failing WP:V) that it shouldn't exist in mainspace, so either a WP:DRAFTIFY or a WP:TNT delete. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your assertions would be more convincing if you provided specific examples. Here are some examples of government documents discussing the article topic by name:

Per WP:DELETE, Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're talking past each other. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have an article at this title, my argument is that this version is unsalvageably bad and should be deleted because improving it would require a complete rewrite, as per WP:TNT.

Let's look at some specific examples from the current version. I'll use the North America subsection.

[1] - this doesn't exist. Glaringly, it doesn't exist at the claimed accessdate, 2025-06-02. [2]
[3] - This exists, but there is substantial content in the body text that cannot possibly be cited to here. For example, the "National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap" is not referenced at this source, (for the record, this does exist, [4]), and the source provides no specific numbers to back up the claim of "10 Mt production by 2030, 20 Mt by 2040, and 50 Mt by 2050".
[5] - this doesn't exist. Same story with the archive [6]
[7] - This doesn't exist. The URL resolves, but notably does not mention hydrogen.

~ A412 ^talk! 18:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, some of the reports cited do in fact exist if you search for them by name, but under different URLs, and in at least one case, under a completely different site. Is it possible that the references were actually read by the author, who consistently misenters nearly every reference URL? Maybe. Is the far more likely explanation that the references are generated by language model? To me, yes. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I rewrote it completely. I could had a bit more with a few examples, say EU and Japan. Rather than get all worked up about this article it seems to me we need to work to avoid a repeat. Merge would be a start as would agreeing to topic ban for the editor responsible for the mess. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a ChatGPT version of the Hydrogen economy article. Angryapathy (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is your evidence for this claim? Johnjbarton (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the topic is probably notable, every source I checked was a dead link or did not support the cited claim, as another user noted. This has all the calling cards of an LLM-written article: The vague, general language; the references that don't exist or don't say what they're cited for; the bullet-point-heavy organization. But frankly the dead citations alone are reason enough for deletion IMO; if the author can't be bothered to check their URLs, why should we be bothered to keep their refbombed-to-the-stone-age article? Let someone who actually cares enough to check their sources write a new article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately, given that some references are fake. How can we believe any of this? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only a few are "fake". Make your own count. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok almost all of the journal citations were fake. The linked ones were ok which threw me off. I guess I should have known from green hydrogen Johnjbarton (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hydrogen economy (first choice) or delete. Johnjbarton did a great job of removing the LLM-generated crap and replacing it with a reasonably WP:V and WP:NPOV passage. The sheer number of hallucinated references makes it clear that none of the original content can be trusted. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since nothing created in the bowels of an AI slop factory can be trustworthy, and nothing suggests that this is a sufficiently distinct topic that needs an article of its own. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for article inclusion is spelled out in detail in Wikipedia:Notability. This topic has significant reliable coverage in secondary sources independent of the topic.
- Andrews, J., & Shabani, B. (2014). The role of hydrogen in a global sustainable energy strategy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 3(5), 474-489.
- COAG Energy Council Hydrogen Working Group. (2019). Australia's national hydrogen strategy.
- Esily, R. R., Chi, Y., Ibrahiem, D. M., & Chen, Y. (2022). Hydrogen strategy in decarbonization era: Egypt as a case study. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 47(43), 18629-18647.\
- Vivanco-Martín, B., & Iranzo, A. (2023). Analysis of the European Strategy for Hydrogen: A Comprehensive Review. Energies, 16(9), 3866.
- Nagashima, M. (2018). Japan's hydrogen strategy and its economic and geopolitical implications (pp. 12-75). Paris, France: Ifri. ISBN: 978-2-36567-918-3
- Hjeij, D., Biçer, Y., & Koç, M. (2022). Hydrogen strategy as an energy transition and economic transformation avenue for natural gas exporting countries: Qatar as a case study. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 47(8), 4977-5009.
- Meng, X., Gu, A., Wu, X., Zhou, L., Zhou, J., Liu, B., & Mao, Z. (2021). Status quo of China hydrogen strategy in the field of transportation and international comparisons. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46(57), 28887-28899.
and so on. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are now cited in the revised article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't need it, it doesn't exist as far as we can verify it, and it turns out to be a toxic dump of original content, AI content creation, and unreliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian I just posted 6 WP:reliable sources to this topic beyond the ones already listed in the article. Did you find any problem with the sources now given? What basis do you have for any of your claims? Johnjbarton (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clicking on anything associated with AI. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, once an article is infected with unreliable sources, it would need to start from scratch. I linked TNT for you. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you find any problem with any source in the article I will fix it. I have checked all four of them. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then how can you make any reasonable contribution here? I completely rewrote the article which you would be able to see if you read it. See also Wikipedia:TNTTNT.Johnjbarton (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only remaining option is to Userfy it, work on it more, and then return it to main space. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already completely rewritten it. What else do you recommend having evidently never read it? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]

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]
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 [8] and [9]). 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]

Balanced force

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 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]

Redirect to Mechanical equilibrium, the article that already covers the idea. I don't see any prose so brilliant that it must be preserved by merging. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mechanical equilibrium, that is an ideal option. That page covers everything in this page far, far better.Ldm1954 (talk) 16:39, 24 June 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