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.

Note that 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[edit]

List of important publications in cryptography[edit]

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

Inherently original research. Compare WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in computer science (2nd nomination). Was previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security but I think this is worth a reevaluation a decade later. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Mathematics, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete such a list can never have a policy-compliant WP:LISTCRIT because "importance" is subjective. BrigadierG (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One alternative is a move to List of publications in cryptography without "important", while applying Wikipedia notability as the WP:LISTCRIT.
Also, the same discussion is applicable to List of important publications in science, List of important publications in chemistry, List of important publications in medicine, List of important publications in mathematics, List of important publications in physics, List of important publications in statistics, List of important publications in data science, List of important publications in geology, List of important publications in economics, List of important publications in philosophy, and List of important publications in pedagogy. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not workable, few individual publications have an article so it would be unclear what should be listed. Reywas92^Talk 20:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Engineering[edit]

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

Written extremely like an advertisement and has many other problems. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Science, Engineering, Transportation, Websites, Turkey, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete good web presence, but the only mentions of it I can find are on places like Reddit. The article trying to WP:INHERIT notability from other news outlets that have cited it is telling. BrigadierG (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation[edit]

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

Page probably created by students in the group of the originator of the algorithm. All relevant refs to the method are from one group, there are no secondary sources. It should be trimmed down to a paragraph or two and merged into Dynamical mean-field theory since it is a variant of that very well established and used approach. We should not have separate articles on every minor DFT variant IMO. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect per nom. Likely COI issue. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954: The TMDCA is a well established method that warrants a page of it's own. It introduces both spatial correlations and order parameter that is currently not available in any mean-field theory, including the dynamical mean field theory. It is just as saying that the page for the

Coherent Potential Approximation and dynamical mean-field theory should be merged. Both these two approximations are exactly the same at the thermodynamical limit, but focused on different aspects of the physics. I respectfully disagree with the notion of merging them and do not support it. SrihariKastuar (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: Both the DMFT and TMDCA are robust approximations that address some of the most challenging problems in condensed matter physics, and they truly merit recognition. Regarding the citations, they're not limited to just one group. In fact, there are seven additional citations from various other groups. As you might be aware, it's common for the initial citations of a method in physics and in science in general to have the imprint of the developer, much like what you see with the DMFT citation, for example, where 95% of the current citations on its page are from the original group. CEE (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: just to add every human being, including yourself has some level of COI. While I have never used the TMDCA before, I am a science enthusiast who appreciates the hard work and dedication of people to solving scientific problems. Please, let's move past this to focus on other things. SrihariKastuar (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Click both link and just write the TMDca approach is very good tools to understand the ground state properties etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.253.44 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — This comment was transferred from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinedu Ekuma where it was misplaced; I offer no comment as to its value, nor do I have my own opinion or comment on this nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would really help if the page author identified the three best sources, i.e., three peer-reviewed publications that provide in-depth discussion of the technique but were not written by its original inventors. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinedu Ekuma[edit]

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

Assistant professor with an h-factor of 22 and no notable awards and no notable mentions. Novice editor (his first article) ignored AfC declination and moved to main space, twice deleting COI tags. On new page patrol both notability and COI were tagged and draftified; novice editor removed tags and a moved back to main space. Hence AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 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) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pro forma, pinging @Whpq and @Liance who previously tagged/reviewed versions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know nothing about Chinedu Ekuma beyond what is in the article, and that does not add up to notability. For a young scientist his career is respectable, but that's not enough. He may become notable in the future, but he's not there yet. Athel cb (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note for any editors reviewing this AFD, the article is an autobiography. See Talk:Chinedu Ekuma. -- Whpq (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotional. I could not locate any independent sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems he's been involved with solar cell research [1]; the innovation might be notable, this professor isn't quite notable yet. Very PROMO and COI doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors have rarely had the time to accumulate enough impact to become noted (by others in their field) and therefore notable (to us). The exception would be someone who gets a major international award (the kind that says this person is already a star of the field) or a major media splash for some discovery. I see nothing of the kind here. That would already lead to a weak delete !vote from me, but the self-promotion makes it into a full delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Walker (educator)[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC/WP:NSCIENTIST. Third-party (independent, non-primary) sources lending significant in-depth coverage appear not to exist, and are unlikely to crop up in the future. JFHJr (㊟) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, South Africa, Switzerland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Hultgren[edit]

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

He was no doubt a metallurgist, and I see that he wrote about metallurgy, but I do not see a lot of reliable secondary sources that would constitute significant coverage. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences in 1930 and of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1945 so passes criterion 3 of WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the four pages in w:sv:Jernkontorets Annaler referenced in the English article, Swedish Wikipedia references an entry in Vem är vem inom handel och industri?: 1944–1945, so that would be a couple of different sources having significant coverage. /Julle (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a third source for WP:GNG we have this clipping from a Swedish mining guild, Sancte Örjens gille [sv]. And the two academy memberships give a double pass to WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Third party sources. WP:GN applies as well.BabbaQ (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree there were no source but since the article define itself, the nominator may have bypassed WP:BEFORE. An elected member of a notable society meets WP:ANYBIO and as such, there is possibility of meeting WP:GNG and sources. Clean up is the best way of cleaning such articles. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Julle -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2-Pyridone (data page)[edit]

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

This is not an article what so ever, why we need such a data page on Wikipedia? Requesting merge to 2-Pyridone or move it to Wikidata if possible. -Lemonaka 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -Lemonaka 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2-Pyridone: Most of this would go in an infobox on the chemical, the rest is too specialized for Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2-Pyridone as per above. Context-less, but useful, data with no supporting article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I fully agree with the above comments that this information is much more specialized than I would expect to find in Wikipedia. However, I want to note that creation of such a data page is recommended by WP:CHEMBOX.. The proposed contents of such a page in the template Wikipedia:Chemical infobox/Data page appear (to me) more useful than the information on the 2-Pyridone data page, but still rather specialized. I don't know if the editors above are aware of such data pages? Given this, I wanted to clarify whether the issue here was the contents of this specific page, or whether there should be a wider conversation about changing WP:MOSCHEM? Mgp28 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need every peak on the NM IR or which spectral lines it makes. This is more for the Merck Manual than a general encyclopedia. I'm not adverse to simply !deleting this either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was over-thinking it. I wondered if all of these Category:Chemical data pages would need consistent outcomes. I found a few discussions, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 36 § Data pages and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 50 § Chemical data pages - move to Wikidata?, and the consensus seems to be that they're decided on a case-by-case basis. So I'm happy to !vote delete (or merge) here and not worry about the rest of the data pages. Mgp28 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mgp28Nearly all Chemical data pages are in different styles, some of them are poorly cited. We may need to discuss them one by one before making a bunch of changes. -Lemonaka 07:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science Proposed deletions[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Science Redirects for discussion[edit]

CS2 → Carbon disulfide (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I think CS2 should point to either Counter-Strike 2 or CS2 (disambiguation), rather than Carbon disulfide (CS₂)

Googling "CS2" overwhelmingly shows Counter-Strike 2, and the names have been used interchangeably by most who are familiar with the game, including the developers.[2]

Out of the articles shown on CS2 (disambiguation) that could arguably go by the name "CS2", carbon disulfide is the lowest-trafficked, and Counter-Strike 2 the highest [3]. BugGhost 🪲👻 21:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change the redirect to disambiguation as proposed. The are oh so many things spelled similarly. --Викидим (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Counter-Strike 2 but add a hatnote to the disambig page --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and hatnote to Counter-Strike 2 per nom. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget and hatnote to Counter-Strike 2. I highly doubt most people looking for information on carbon disulfide don't also know its full name.

Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 15:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move disambiguation page to the base title. I don't see a clear primary topic and redirecting this to the disambiguation page would result is a WP:MALPLACED page. In addition, the abbreviation has been used for a long time, and redirecting it to Counter-Strike 2 would create WP:RECENTISM problems. - Eureka Lott 17:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move disambiguation page per EurekaLott. I don't feel that elevating the game to the status of primary topic is justified. Nickps (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Video games. Nickps (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move disambiguation page to base title. I am not convinced that search hits relying on the internet-based nature of the gaming community are adequate justification for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, any more than the fact that Google Scholar hits overwhelmingly refer to the chemical would be adequate justification for choosing the other topic as primary. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig per "Counter-Strike 2 is more likely to be searched, but not fully the primary topic either per WP:RECENTISM" Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate No obvious primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per the above, this game is too new to guarantee that it will be the primary topic forever. Toadspike [Talk] 17:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My memory from being a teenager 20-odd years ago suggests that CS2 was a common way to refer to Counter-Strike: Source back in the day (despite it technically being the 3rd installment of the series). If this was true, the association with CS2 to Counter-Strike may be much longer lasting and enduring than WP:RECENTISM would suggest. Buuuuut... I'll admit personal anecdotes are not data. Is there anything like google ngrams that can search internet forums from back in the day? Fieari (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even play CS but I would think the Source version is more known as CS 1.6 which has a redirect. – The Grid (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to get too far off topic, but Counter-Strike: Source and Counter-Strike 1.6 are two different games, released in 2004 and 2000 respectively. Regarding CS:S as being referred to as "CS2" - this could be true historically, but I doubt many would refer to CS:S as "CS2" today after the release of Counter-Strike 2. BugGhost 🪲👻 12:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my position: Disambiguate - The disambiguation voters have swayed me, I think moving the contents of the disambiguation page over to CS2 makes the most sense. BugGhost 🪲👻 12:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review[edit]