Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Biology

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Biology. 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|Biology|~~~~}} 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 Biology. 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/Biology/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Biology

Maria Cho

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

Mainly brief mentions, fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Food and drink, Health and fitness, Biology, Engineering, Florida, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radheshyam Bishnoi

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

I recently accepted this article via AfC. The subject has significant coverage in reliable sources like The Indian Express, The Print, and Hindustan Times, mainly around his death, but with in-depth info about his life. There's also a 2021 Hindi source with substantial coverage. I believe this meets the GNG, but to ensure consensus, I think an AfD discussion would be helpful so experienced editors can weigh in. Afstromen (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Asia, India, and Rajasthan. Afstromen (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also found these sources on Google, [1], [2]. Afstromen (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough references to demonstrate subject's notability. [3] - This is an in-depth coverage by reliable source Mongabay, [4]- An in-depth article by Hindustan Times. AndySailz (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was his death notable? Most people have obituaries. Where is the significant coverage outside of his death? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question please. If a news article about a person's death includes substantial coverage of their early life, career, and accomplishments essentially providing in-depth information directly about the subject, does that count toward meeting the General Notability Guideline (GNG)? Or is such a source discounted just because it's related to their death?Afstromen (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reflecting on someone's life is exactly what an obituary does. If they were notable prior to the death, there would be significant coverage about their life during that time. So, unless something about the death is notable, it would not count. Otherwise, we could simply create new pages based on obituary sections of newspapers. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i wasn't aware of this. Outside his death, i found some sources [5], [6], [7].Afstromen (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radheshyam Bishnoi was a celebrity in Indian conservation circles prior to his death with many stories published about his work in Hindi and English. He also won notable awards, so he seems to clear the notability bar. Naturepeople (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He was notable person before his death. He won awards from Rajasthan gov and he was featured in many popular news sites. Jodhpuri (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Rajasthan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject has got substantial coverage in independent media like The Print, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, and other. I think it passes WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Blue

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

Tagged for notability for many years. It doesn't seem like a rare breed which is unrecognised by the national breeding association would be notable and I'm not seeing much which would be considered independent RS to add. As an ATD there is List of chicken breeds but that just has breed names so it isn't obvious that there would be anything to merge or much point in a redirect. JMWt (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Iowa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 28 May 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota flowers

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

The flowers don't appear to be documented in scientific literature or plant registries. They seem to be tied to a single Toyota factory's green initiative, with no significant lasting coverage or indication that they were widely adopted, studied, or recognized beyond the context of Toyota's internal landscaping efforts Mooonswimmer 14:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in Gscholar, this one in Gbooks [8], more like a trivia item than enough for a full article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Engineering, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: so far just passing mentions, have yet to find a more in-depth coverage of the subject, noted that the citations in the article has already become deadlinks.Lorraine Crane (talk) 02:58, 29 May 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.

Molecular Sciences Course

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

Page on a single undergraduate class, translated from the pt-wiki. There is nothing notable about this class, the page is just an extended description without any coverage from what I can see. This is not what (the english) Wikipedia is for, class information can go on Facebook, LinkedIn or similar. The page should probably have been draftified, but missed the 90 day window. Deletion seems appropriate, as I do not see how this can possibly be edited to pass any of the english WP notability criteria. (Possible COI as well, but that is not the deciding factor.) Ldm1954 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Biology, Science and Brazil. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to meet WP:GNG. It's possible that a single college or university could be independently notable. But I expect that is quite rare and in any case the claim needs to be supported by reliable, independent sources just like every other article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reason given. There are, of course, many articles on single colleges and universities, so I think ElKevbo accidentally omitted the word "course" after "single college or university". Athel cb (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is a typo on my part. Thank you for the polite correction! ElKevbo (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I studied in USP and I heard of this "elite" course. Maybe the article as it is currently doesn't adequately capture why this course is special, notable, but ... as far as I know the sources in the current article already attest to some notability. Not sure about how special courses/majors are treated in wikipedia as a whole though 🙏🏽 (hello from Wikiproject Brazil!) User:D Kirlston - talk 19:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TATAA Biocenter

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

Relies almost entirely on primary sources. Unable to find any sources that show it meets WP:NCORP. The only secondary coverage is about an event - the former CEO being removed and suing a law firm that he says gave him bad counsel that led to his removal. But there’s no WP:INHERITORG from being associated with an event (and the event here does not even have sufficient enduring significance to qualify for a page under WP:Event in any case. I have a WP:COI as a paid consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by this company. I do not want to waste the time of volunteer editors to evaluate proposed corrections and edit requests on a page that does not qualify.) Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Biology, Medicine, and Sweden. Skynxnex (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is not particualrly strong. Notability is not clear. Does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning keep - article definitely has an excessive detail problem, but they received some non-routine seeming coverage for their COVID-19 testing program (added 2 sources to article, although one isn't accessible w/o pressreader). Zzz plant (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that the nominator may have been influenced more by a perceived conflict of interest (COI) issue than by the actual question of notability. The company in question was founded by Mikael Kubista, and similar patterns have occurred before. For example, on Mikael Kubista's own Wikipedia page, there was repeated removal of content related to a legal dispute involving TATAA Biocenter by SPA @ArtChomsky which was settled by an admin and the argument to remove a fact related TATAA there was irrational. A similar issue seems to be happening here—there appears to be an effort, possibly coordinated behind the scenes, to suppress certain information by removing pages from Wikipedia. This raises concerns about the integrity of the platform’s commitment to neutrality and transparency.

I urge editors to review this situation carefully, with special attention to the quality and relevance of the sources cited, to ensure that content is evaluated fairly and not unduly influenced by COI concerns or efforts to obscure verifiable information.ManIxal (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: They appear to have developed a pcr "thing" I don't really understand (https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/hum.2021.29195.bfs?journalCode=hum), with coverage here of it being used in an experiment [9]. Not sure how that affects notability, but there are several dozen hits in Gscholar using their name. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This source comes up [10], it either reads as a company profile or a press release, but I don't know enough to !vote based on the sourcing I've found. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biology proposed deletions

No articles proposed for deletion at this time