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

José Luis Ricón

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

Dubious notability. The Org seems to be the equivalent of a LinkedIn page, and the Future page does not provide any notable information. Many of the citations in the article are not verified in the sources, such as the claim of a "widely cited resource" Longevity FAQ. In addition, I have reason to believe this might be a trolling attempt, due to the creation of a prediction market on if the article will survive to the end of the year (https://manifold.markets/infiniteErgodicity/will-the-wikipedia-article-for-jose) Duckduckgoop (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Duckduckgoop (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, Internet, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nano City

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

Proposal in 2006 to build a city in India for nanotechnology work. The project never went anywhere and was formally cancelled in 2010. The only sources are two 2006 news articles about the proposals, and two articles when it was cancelled. It is very hard to justify this page as notable, particularly as there is no evidence that this cancelled proposal had any impact -- fails WP:Notability means impact. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and India. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UCPH Department of Chemistry

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

Fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Denmark. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards keep just because this is such an old department and has the start of what looks to be a verifiable history - I just can't find it because I don't know any Danish and have to rely on Google Translate to find anything useful. If no one else can find information about it (the other departments also pretty heavily rely on primary sources, though they are in general better sourced) then it would probably be best to merge to University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science. Recon rabbit 15:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nanochannel glass materials

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

Article about arrays of nanoscale glass holes; not to be confused with Nanopipettes or Anodized Aluminum Oxide. Article is based upon a NRL development or patent, and a single NRL science paper where these were used as a template for deposition.^[1] While that is an interesting paper, it did not get adopted by the community, having 86 total cites as of March 2025, which is not large for a high-profile journal. No indications of general notability, certainly not compared to nanopipettes and other types of nanoscale piping in microfluidics or similar systems which are different. Hence fails notability criteria for retention.

Article was PROD'd by nominator, with a PROD2 by User:Bieran. Prod was opposed by User:Mark viking who added sources on nanoscale glass pipettes, and argued (see Talk) that the article is about nanoscale channels, which it was not. Note that the sources added are for single pipettes, not arrays. Options are:

Delete
Keep
Redirect to nanopipette, i.e. keeping such pipettes as a topic that is notable, but acknowledging that what is currently here is different, i.e. abandoning the array concept. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would think a merge best here. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect is acceptable to me. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fail-safes in nanotechnology

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

Page that fails WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:Notability. It combines a number of different topics, with original research suggestions for ways to prevent malfunctions. The page contains 8 sources, but only [6] is claimed to be related to failsafe and reading of the source only has “In the future, if our molecular automaton is sent on a medical mission, it can be programmed to exercise similar judgment”, i.e. crystal ball. When this page was created in 2008, perhaps there was discussion of building failsafe into future nanotech, although I am dubious; for certain this neologism has not been adopted by the community. Topics such as self-healing materials, self-healing hydrogels, self-healing concrete (and a few more) as well as fault tolerance are well established, and should not be confused with this neologism.

Curtesy ping of User:Bearian. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Some folks want to eliminate all of these poorly sourced articles on nanotechnology, some want to leave them all here. I'm taking them on a case-by-case basis. Everyone knows that we have never published original content. There's lots of places to publish this. We're a charity under attack and we can't stray from our missions. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your opinion about the nano articles. If repairable and notable they are fine, and should have sources added and be updated although that is non-trivial work. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Subject is clearly entirely speculative and not suitable for inclusion. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...not only because of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, but because of total misrepresentation of the sources. Source 1 is cited for the claim "It is possible to scale down macro-scale fail-safe principles and devices for similar applications at the nano-scale", but the cited reference says absolutely nothing remotely related to this. Source 2 is for the statement "These robots would have the ability to construct other nanostructures or perform medical procedures, and will be introduced into the body via an injection". "Robots" are never mentioned in the cited article, and "inject" appears once, in a passage about introducing magnetic fluids to an artery supplying a particular tissue. This article is an irredeemable disaster. Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures

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

The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (commonly BIPM, per its name in French) is undoubtedly notable but this article does not show that the foundation of the Bureau was a separately notable event, and notability is not inherited. Merging into International Bureau of Weights and Measures would not be appropriate; much of this content has previouly been removed from that article, and/or Metre and History of the metre, as excessively detailed, failing WP:DUE, off-topic, digressive and florid. NebY (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, and Science. NebY (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems to be a POV fork that combines things that could be included in International Bureau of Weights and Measures#History and then History of the metre. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- So you would undo Special:Diff/1282631916 by the nominator and put it back in? We're here because the nominator blanked all of this from the main article's history section saying it was off-topic, it was spun out to a sub-article (presumably to be on-topic in its own article), and then the nominator nominated the sub-article for deletion. Don't be fooled by the passive voice in the nomination. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  This article also includes material deleted from History of the metre by Johnjbarton [1] and from Metre by Fgnievinski [2]. NebY (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is that the centennial history of the BIPM published in 1975 was 220-some pages long, and yet our article had a mere 4 paragraphs of history. The coverage in the 1883-09-13 edition of Nature that was only on the founding of the organization, who agreed to it, who paid for it, where the buildings were built, and what was in the buildings, was longer than our entire main article. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fist, do NOT have duplicative content that is identical and redundant across pages. I think some of this issue comes from the ongoing edits and reversion between NebY and Charles Inigo across multiple pages so I'm not sure what each intends for them to look like, but Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures#Emerging geodetic standard and History of the metre#Emerging geodetic standard should not be on two pages lke this. The main BIPM article is not long enough to warrant a subarticle and its history should absolutely be longer – A lot of this information is very relevant and should be included there. However, I agree that some of this is about the history of the meter rather than specifcially the BIPM so that would belong on that page rather than this one. I disagree that it's excessively florid or detailed, it could use copyediting or trimming but should be kept somewhere rather than deleted altogether. Reywas92^Talk
Nor Merge nor Delete I tried to insert a lot of informations in History of the metre, but other contributors belived this article sould rather focuse on successive definitions of the metre. In order to avoid deletion of material, I copied part of it in International Association of Geodesy and in Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain.
Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain shows that the arc measurement which served to define the length of the metre was preceded by a geodetic survey aiming at joinning Paris and Greenwich observatories and was followed by remeasurment and extension of the arc meridian through Spain and Algeria at the time when Greenwich was adopted as the Prime meridian.
International Association of Geodesy explains the role of geodetic surveys and gravimetry in determining the figure of the Earth which was the aim of the French Acacdemy of Sciences in addition of determining the length of the metre.
When I created Fondation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures the introductory section was larger and I copy-pasted it in the History section of International Bureau of Weights and Measures with links to various articles including Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain and Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.
I then copy pasted material from History of the metre where it is considered by other contributors as an excessive amount of intricate details. I copied and pasted rather than cut and paste as I anticipated that Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures could be deleted.
In conclusion, I propose:
- to keep the extended version of the introductory section of Fondation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures as the content of the History section of International Bureau of Weights and Measures,
- to keep the section Emerging geodetic standard in Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and
- to delete or summarize this section in History of the metre, which should focuse on the successive definitions of the metre accordingly to the wish of other contributors of this article.
Merge The content of the article Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures has been deleted, when I tried to merge it in History of the metre and it will not be accepted in the future. Merging in the article International Bureau of Weights and Measures's section History could eventually be an alternative. Charles Inigo (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures" notable?
- Our criterion is A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notice that explicitly excludes sources by the BIPM. Some of the sources in the current article are about the topic but the vast majority are not. Even Quinn's books, since he worked there for 25 years.
- Delete? I wish, but it does not look like we will have consensus to delete and there are reliable sources for the topic.
- Merge? No, the current content is not suitable any where in Wikipedia.
- What to do? I made a proposal Talk:Foundation_of_the_International_Bureau_of_Weights_and_Measures#Proposal. Basically delete any content that does not match (say) Quinn's TOC for his Artifacts book.

Johnjbarton (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the name change for instance: Creation of the International Bureau for Weights and Measures. I propose a short description be added: From geodetic standard to international prototype metre. The scope of the article could be limited to the period from the Exposition Universelle (1855) up to the first General Conference on Weights and Measures (1855-1889). However, many sources date the beginning of the process back to the Great Exhibition in 1851.

Charles Inigo (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camera, hand lens, and microscope probe

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

Fails GNG. For reference, CHAMP was a proposed instrument that doesn't seem to have been included in the Mars Science Laboratory. Originally proposed at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20090007927 - all sources I can find are either primary (authored by one or more of the inventors) or mention the instrument only in passing. Deprodded on account of Google Scholar hits, but I don't think any of those articles are secondary. Anerdw (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, and Spaceflight. Anerdw (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's all conference papers, as far as I can find. Uncle G (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if its all conference papers honestly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 4 April 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

^ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.270.5233.68

[1] ttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.270.5233.68

[1]