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

Homogeneity and heterogeneity

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

nothing in common except the name; the main topic is already split: Homogeneous and heterogeneous mixtures. fgnievinski (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve H&H as mixtures may indeed already be a section elsewhere; but that’s not the only interpretation. Budding mathematicians might be interested in the mathematical meanings of H&H, and for them I’d like to see the current short paragraph expanded rather than swept away altogether. Nick Levine (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's notable, it ought be split to H&H (mathematics). fgnievinski (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important distinction for binary relations. — Rgdboer (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it's already well covered in Homogeneous relation. fgnievinski (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fossil sites

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

Like the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of archaeological sites by continent and age, this is just too broad for a single list article. Looking at the article, it isn't even clear what a "fossil site" even is. Many of the listed iems are geological formations, which are typically geographically extensive and therefore not "sites". Listing fossil sites by region is already effectively done by categories (e.g Category:Paleontological sites). Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You only list those notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it a valid navigational list, with more information than a category can have, so more useful. Category:Paleontological sites exist so perhaps a rename is in order to list of Paleontological sites. Dream Focus 16:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dream Focus, it's a good navigational list. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of the arguments from the previous discussion about deleting this list still apply (I can’t seem to track down the archive entry for that deletion discussion, despite having reread it least week? Now, the same search brings me to this current discussion. I think the previous one was in 2017). My summary of that and past talk page discussions:

This list is far more useful than a category or set of categories because it has more information than categories can include.
This list can be sorted in multiple ways (primary notability, age, continent or country). From a geology perspective, sorting by time period is often more important/interesting than sorting by region. Some people sort by notability or use the tags to find types of sites. If we split it up, we have to maintain lists or categories for all of combinations of sorts and sub-sorts. (And then we get to argue about where to put the divisions between time periods in the past couple million years).
We have, in fact, made a solid attempt at defining a fossil site. The reason entire formations are listed is because some formations outcrop at many sites in a general region and listing every outcrop is neither feasible nor particularly useful. This has been discussed in the Talk at some length and is mentioned in the list intro. Ideally such formations would each have a listed type locality or primary site, but no one has yet done the research to add those to every previously listed formation. (Sometimes these localities are already in the primary article for a formation, but no one has yet added them here.)
If we actually apply the inclusion criteria discussed in Talk to delete list entries (rather than just to new additions) the list will get tidier. Deleting the list itself would remove a valuable and popular navigational tool.

Elriana (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And mention only those that are notable. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Elkhorn–Blair tornado

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

Someone is bound to AfD this, so I'll just get it out of the way and see what the community thinks. My concerns:
1. This is WP:TOOSOON, especially for a low-end EF4 tornado.
2. The entire tornado summary (and even part of the "post-anaylsis" upgrade bit) can be merged into the existing section at Tornado outbreak of April 25–28, 2024.
3. Does it meet WP:NOTABLE? I'm on the line because it was a low-end EF4 but it killed nobody.
While I get that I have AfD'd a lot of these recent tornado articles, please understand that I'm just raising my concerns here, and would like to gain community concensus on these issues. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 05:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Nebraska. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 05:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm going to have to make an argument here. As the reviewer of the article, two things: this meets WP:GNG, and it's notable enough to at least not warrant a WP:NOPAGE-type deletion. I don't think it's really the fatalities the specific tornado causes, but rather the individual coverage garnered from it. And from what I can tell, I think it does meet the specified criteria and, from its length, is alright to keep. ~ Tails Wx 10:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Science. C F A 💬 15:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to answer each one individually.

1. The rating means absolutely nothing. There have been weaker tornadoes that have received articles. The reasoning also doesn't even relate to the WP:TOOSOON argument.

2. I'm not going to deny that one, but in this case, I don't think length matters.

3. A tornado doesn't have to be deadly to be notable. In fact, of all the tornadoes that occurred in the Omaha metro that day, only one of them killed someone. Despite this, all 5 of the EF3+ tornadoes in the area received varying, although still a lot, of press coverage.

I see this as a valid WP:LASTING case and am, therefore, going to vote keep. ChessEric 15:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — About a week ago, I gave my take on having an article for this tornado. A week ago, I was opposed to it having an article only on the grounds of not having clear lasting coverage. However, that has since changed, with several news articles on the tornado in just the last week ([1][2][3]). The tornado seems to have lasting impacts as well. My take on the WP:TOOSOON rational/argument is when a tornado is entirely still preliminary. The official/“finalized” reports for this tornado are out, so I do not believe it would be too soon for an article on the tornado. For all of that, I believe it is ok to have an article for this tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per ChessEric and WeatherWriter.

Poodle23 (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Hanami-Sakura 10:00, 7August 2024 (UTC)

Salt extraction process

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

Not a notable research paper; the article is not about salt production in general, but one specific procedure described in a 2005 research paper. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately, all sourcing is primary; it has peer-reviewed articles about it, all by the same authors identified in the opening paragraph of the article. Gscholar still brings up the term as recently as 2015, but it's still by these same authors. Until we have sourcing from others, we can't use their own articles as sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any secondary reliable sources on the salt attraction process, and I have to concur that this article fails the criteria under WP:GNG. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 13:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't have enough important information or reliable sources. It repeats what other articles on salt production already cover. Yakov-kobi (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BioSense

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

Fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV in secondary or tertiary sources to establish independent notability. A couple passing, definitional, mentions in books, but not enough for this encyclopedia. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral WP:SIGCOV might apply. I found some mentions that are more-than-passing-mentions that are outside of cdc.gov, including this news article https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/cdc-realign-biosense-focus-most-populous-cities-0 and this GAO report https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-100.pdf. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasios Tsakalidis

AfDs for this article:

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

Article reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.". I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Computing, and Greece. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment? Millions? How did you arrive at that figure? Nom seems to be unaware that WP:Prof may also be met. Subject has high GS citations, but in a very high cited field. Not sure. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
When I say there are millions of other academics, I mean that there's nothing special about his career that makes it stand out. If you could take a moment to clarify your position, it would be much appreciated. Now you're disrupting the consensus process just to disrupt it. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to other editors if you were more precise in your use of language so that there is no need for further explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Week keep There's a decent case for a WP:PROF#C1 by way of a sufficiently strong citation profile. (Computer science is a comparatively high-citation field, but a fair amount of his publication record is from decades ago, meaning that it dates to an era when citation rates were lower overall and it has had more time to be indirectly influential.) However, there doesn't seem to be much to say. After a round of cleanup, the article doesn't besmirch the dignity of the encyclopedia with egregious promotionalism, but it doesn't appear that removing the article would leave a critical gap in our coverage of computer science. Overall, keeping it seems justifiable but not obligatory. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. The only case seems to be WP:PROF#C1 and the closer one looks the less impressive the record seems to be. His early work was in data structures (one of my primary areas of research); among his higher-cited publications he has coauthorship on a textbook by the much more notable Kurt Mehlhorn and one paper on the order-maintenance problem which is neither the first word on the subject (see Dietz STOC 1982) nor the last. It's hard to see much pattern in his more recent works except for a series of papers on using machine learning techniques in recruitment; compared to data structures, machine learning is a much higher citation subfield and his citation numbers in this area are ok but nothing special. He doesn't appear to have published at all since 2021. And although I suspect that the basic career milestones in the article could be sourced, almost none of it actually is adequately sourced. XOR'easter already removed a large chunk of "puffery, glurge, and inline external URLs" and I removed more, but it would need to be stubbed down much more if kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per David Eppstein. For machine learning, I would expect higher citation numbers for satisfying WP:PROF#C1, and there does not appear to be evidence of passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more of a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Contents

Science

Homogeneity and heterogeneity

List of fossil sites

2024 Elkhorn–Blair tornado

Salt extraction process

BioSense

Athanasios Tsakalidis

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Deletion Review