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

Isoelectric (electric potential)

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

Pure dictionary definition, WP:NOTDICT perfectly applies here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, and/or Redirect. The topic is highly notable, even if the page is awful. I will post this to WT:PHYSICS as someone will either improve it or find the right home for a redirect. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is valuable information for applications in solid state physics as well as in medicine (cardiology and related topics).
Starlighsky (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please improve it. If you don't I will probably change my vote to speedy delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or at worst redirect): the content here does not deserve an article of its own.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it were moved to isoelectric line, this would never grow beyond WP:DICTDEF. And the actual term used by people is equipotential line (sometimes isopotential line). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moore Center for Theoretical Cosmology and Physics

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

Unable to verify anything about this center outside of Wiki mirrors and this about its creation. Nothing even approaching N:ORG. I do 'not think a redirect to Caltech is a viable ATD as while it is/was housed there, there's no indication it was part of Caltech and one to Marc Kamionkowski doesn't appear helpful to the reader and as it's not mentioned in Mark B. Wise, it's not clear if that's relevant to Wise's career. Star Mississippi 20:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science, and California. Star Mississippi 20:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indrajit Prasad

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

Not a notable scholar. The news articles in which he speaks as an expert are not about himself, they only feature comments by him about medical topics. The papers in the list of "his most cited papers" are not all that well-cited and were all primarily directed by other scholars with some collaboration by him. The creation of this article could be explained by User_talk:M.parvage#Reblocked. Badbluebus (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Medicine, Asia, and Bangladesh. Badbluebus (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. low GS cites in a very high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Sourced to primary sources and things written by him. Searches found nothing independent deeper than directory listings. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, Michigan State University

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG - there do not appear to be sufficient reliable sources about the subject to establish notability and notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization and the notable people who have been associated with the program ElKevbo (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully and strongly disagree. In almost all cases, academic programs are notable only because of one or both of two things: high rankings from independent sources, and notable faculty and alumni. The entry establishes that the Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, Michigan State University, satisfies both of those criteria.

If this is not sufficient, then I would point out that there are countless other entries on Wikipedia about academic units that should also be deleted. I won’t name them (except see below) because I think they are useful entries for people trying to understand the connections between scholars, the histories of fields, possible places for study, and more.

I note that ElKevbo is a scholar at the University of Delaware, like MSU also a superb public university. When I go to the categories page for that university, the top entry I see in the left column is for the Alfred Lerner College of Business and Economics. The top entry I see in the right column is the Institute of Energy Conversion. Neither lists any external references that indicate notability. These are just two such entries in the University of Delaware category, and there are several others.

I don’t envy the Wikipedia editors who must work hard to sustain quality and, in so doing, set and implement reasonable and fair standards. However, those standards may need revision and/or more reliance on good-faith, verifiable information about well-known institutions and productive scholars. Otherwise, the standards should be enforced consistently and fairly. I favor more reliance on good-faith, readily verifiable information (even if from university websites) about institutions and scholars, which I think will allow Wikipedia to be most useful to its readers. Factsnfigurestoo (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, in every case programs are notable by Wikipedia standards because they meet our general notability guideline or notability guidelines for organizations. Simply being highly ranked is not at all sufficient. Nor can a program be notable because notable people are associated with it. We need independent, reliable sources about this program sufficient to establish that it's notable on its own. The current version of the article doesn't have those kinds of sources and I have not been able to locate any myself. ElKevbo (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the decent here. There are other units in wikipedia that don't seem to follow these notability guidelines. In most programs/schools, all of the references come from that university's website. For example: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/School_of_Geography_and_the_Environment,_University_of_Oxford, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Ecology_School, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/School_of_Social_Ecology. The standard should be applied consistently across programs- meaning these others should be deleted too. Why single out this one program. 2601:405:4A00:68F:4862:1A82:A10D:8E1 (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dissent 2601:405:4A00:68F:4862:1A82:A10D:8E1 (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michigan_State_University_academics: where at most a sentence can be added about it, if not delete all together. This is OR and unencyclopedic, a level of unnecessary detail. Star Mississippi 19:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Lack of reliable resources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional piece on top of the notability issues. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Engineering

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourcing has not improved since the last AFD (soft deleted) and I was unable to locate any additional good sources online. The subject fails GNG and NCORP. Justi yaya 02:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. Justi yaya 02:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Science, Engineering, Transportation, Turkey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable web content, most instances of supposed "coverage" in secondary sources (§ References in the media) are simple attribution mentions. Could not find any instance of coverage sufficient to meet WP:NCORP or the WP:GNG. —Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, reference spot checks in the section § References in the media are not turning up any mentions; at this point I would be surprised to find more correct claims in that section than incorrect. A Ctrl+F search turns up lots of hits for "interesting" but not for "interesting engineering", especially for the subject corp. But they aren't all free/infront of a paywall, please {{ping}} me if someone can confirm any of the mentions. I know that factual inaccuracies in the article are no reason for deletion, but it certainly raises my BS meter and I think any claims suggesting sources meet the WP:GNG should be balanced against the advice in WP:THREE. —Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bobby Cohn. I was not able to find any sources, and the cited sources are either not reliable or do not mention the subject at all; not even passing mentions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Tharwat Hassan

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

Associate Professor with an h-factor of 12 and no major awards. No evidence that he comes close to satisfying any of the WP:NPROF criteria. While notability was challenged in a tag by Kj cheetham in Feb 2022, it appears it was not followed up on. He has somehow slipped through the normal review process that would avoid non-notable academics. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not established. Criterium 1 is not let either as noted in the initial report (low h-index for a field that usually has very high ones due to collaboration)

JamesKH76 (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate

Deletion Review