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

2024 Nobel Prize in Physics

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

We do not have any examples of other individual Nobel Prize in Physics entries and a recent one is underdeveloped and not more notable. Efforts are still needed in many laureates and contribution articles including this year laureates. Nobel Peace prizes have individual prizes because nomination is vastly public which is not the case of physics prizes. Wiki articles like this are mostly a collection of WP:RECENT news buzz. The merge discussion above suggested that we should discuss the deletion of this article. ReyHahn (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. ReyHahn (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton, Ldm1954, MYSKaoi, Jähmefyysikko, Quondum, and Sushidude21!: courtesy ping because you participated in the previous conversation.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary, already covered in List of Nobel laureates in Physics

Johnjbarton (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Note that an AfD is appropriate as an earlier PROD was rejected. Ldm1954 (talk)
Delete – Not appropriate to have a separate article: the minimal facts are notable but already more suitably covered in a list article as noted by Johnjbarton. There is no reason why this award should be treated any differently than the other physics Nobel prizes. —Quondum 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to there simply not being enough to say about the awarding of the prize itself, as opposed to the work it was awarded for. The only thing we could possibly say about the award itself is the kerfuffle about whether the work belongs to physics proper, but Nobel Prize controversies#Physics already covers that in a sentence. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please do not make articles merely for the sake of making articles. The fact that the Peace Prize has its own page doesn't mean this one does. Reywas92^Talk 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Italy

AfDs for this article:

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

As per the deletion discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Australia. This has been recently restored from targeting Culture of Italy, but the page contains no such list of "cultural icons". It is not suitable to be a redirect, but it also does not seem suitable to be an article, either, so we arrive here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Food and drink, Literature, Music, Architecture, Entertainment, History, Fashion, Popular culture, Science, Sports, Transportation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There can be no conclusive criteria for this list. Lorstaking (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of the Netherlands

AfDs for this article:

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Australia. Recently restored from being a redirect, as the target in question does not contain a list of cultural icons. Not suitable to be a redirect, but it doesn't seem to be a need to have this as an article, either. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the previous AfD and it seems to me that the problem is that "cultural icon" is completely undefined. Entries on such a list may be verified, but they are at the whim of the commentator in the source calling them an icon. I see no purpose in such a random list: delete. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Food and drink, Language, Literature, Music, Architecture, Animal, Entertainment, History, Royalty and nobility, Fashion, Popular culture, Science, Sports, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics

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

Page created by a new editor which was accepted at AfC in good faith by a reviewer who it appears does not have an extensive background in the science area. Following a brief discussion on the talk page, there are Toosoon, Notability, OR, NPOV and Dubious issues. Some more information added to AfD page. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curtesy ping of @Johnjbarton, RangersRus, Jähmefyysikko, ReyHahn, and Cadaik:. As nominator I think there are multiple issues:

WP:TOOSOON, the article is based upon a 2023 paper and a 2024 paper, where the 2024 paper is the only one that cites the 2023 paper.
WP:N general lack of other sources to indicate that the neolism is notable.
WP:OR large sections of the page are unsourced and appear to be original research by the editor.
WP:NPOV page suggests that the approach is only relevant for low speeds, but fails to mention other issues. To quote from the abstract of the first source "Furthermore, the article shows that the modern formulation of Weber electrodynamics is clearly superior to standard electrodynamics in electrical engineering, because it not only eliminates internal contradictions, but also represents considerable simplification and compression." These hidden claims go far beyond what the text reveals.
WP:DUBIOUS without being specific, the article models diffraction from an edge and two slits without stating that it is giving a new, unsourced interpretation of the classic wave–particle duality. This is stated more clearly at the end of the open source code referenced in the page " It is plausible to assume that such real classical forces might be the true cause of all quantum effects. For more on this topic, see https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.23055584.v2". Wikipedia is not the place for such hidden claims. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: Please remain objective. It is not relevant what you personally believes. There are convincing, comprehensible and unconcealed facts, evidence and simulation results.

I would now like to address the various points:

WP:TOOSOON / WP:N: The two aspects are connected and cannot be denied. I have read the guidelines and it is true that it is too early for a self-standing article. I therefore suggest a merge into Weber electrodynamics.
WP:NPOV "Furthermore, the article shows that the modern formulation of Weber electrodynamics is clearly superior to standard electrodynamics in electrical engineering, because it not only eliminates internal contradictions, but also represents considerable simplification and compression." The citation is from the abstract of one of the cited articles, which was published in a scientific journal and was apparently considered appropriate by the reviewers and the editors. This text cannot be found in the Wikipedia article. Where is neutrality violated when a source is cited?
WP:OR: "large sections of the page are unsourced and appear to be original research by the editor." This should be explained in more detail.
WP:DUBIOUS: Your raised objections do not refer to the Wikipedia page. The Wikipedia page shows examples of interference and diffraction from a classical point of view, where an electromagnetic wave is emitted by a dipole antenna and then reflected by a barrier of secondary dipoles. This is a common model. The source code is publicly available and cited. The preprint which you mention is not cited on the Wikipedia page and can be found only at the very end on https://github.com/StKuehn/OpenWME. The preprint is there only linked as an interesting side note. Specifically, the website says "... this example exceeds the usual field of application of electrical engineering considerably. It is an interesting by-product which arose during the development ..." The vast majority of the examples on https://github.com/StKuehn/OpenWME verify the predictions of Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics by means of known classical effects. This ensures that not only the theoretical derivation is correct (this is performed by mathematical proofs), but also that the practical results are convincing.

Cadaik (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this page is about a couple of 2023/2024 papers which are barely cited, this is far from being WP:NOTABLE and indicates WP:RECENTISM or at least WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article. No review article on the topics exists for the moment. I would suggest not merging with Weber electrodynamics as the topics seems to be unrelated and Weber–Maxwelll electrodynamics is not used in the literature to refer to Weber electrodynamics.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We have many, many instances where a newish peer-reviewed primary source is cited in support of one aspect of a notable topic. However in such cases the amount and breadth of the content needs to be in proportion to the impact of the source which in this case is very limited. The actual impact is the only thing that matters, not the potential, truthfulness, wonderfulness etc. I don't think this topic is bogus though a brief look at the cited authors other work leads me to think they have limited background outside of computational EM. Therefore I don't expect this topic to grow into something significant. In any case I would encourage @Cadaik to contribute to existing articles with more focus on reviews and secondary sources to get a feel for Wikipedia-ness. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the total lack of viable sources upon which an encyclopedia article could be built. None of the content is worth merging, for the same reason. Magnetism is an MDPI journal, meaning that it has no value. (Likewise, though of less importance here, the translations of historical sources are published by "Apeiron Montreal", a book imprint associated with a now-defunct fringe journal.) And to be polite, any claim like such real classical forces might be the true cause of all quantum effects faces a very steep hill to climb before it can be taken remotely seriously.XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter I was not able to find your quote "such real classical forces might be the true cause of all quantum effects" in the article. As far as I can tell this is quote from Ldm1954 referring to a source which is also not cited by the article. I don't think it is fair to discredit the article on the basis of a blog post not cited or discussed in the article and on a topic unrelated to the article. The software demonstrations of wave diffraction do not appear to me to be notable as they appear quite similar to ripple tank models. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnjbarton, the quote is verbatim from the bottom of reference 16, OpenWME, cited in the article and used in the reinterpretation of diffraction. All the Figures except the first were created with OpenWME (trace to the media wiki source). @XOR'easter usage was correct. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"such real classical forces might be the true cause of all quantum effects" => The accent is on the word might here. "might" does not mean "are". The argumentation is then presented in a lengthy preprint. Science means to walk through the world with open eyes and to study interesting things when one notices them. It must always be possible to post interesting things. Cadaik (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there are no reliable secondary sources which we could use to verify the content (per WP:V). This is even more important, since revamping classical electrodynamics would be an WP:extraordinary accomplishment which would need strong evidence. (even if there are limits with regard to relativistic speeds) Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to walk through the world with open eyes or post interesting things. Science, if at all done, should be done somewhere very far from here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. This statement was referring to a post somewhere in one of the secondary sources. It has nothing to do with the WP article. The article discusses a topic of classical non-relativistic electrodynamics and not quantum mechanics. Cadaik (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is already adequately covered insofar as it might be sourceable, rendering what is not unsourceable redundant. —Quondum 21:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is 1/2 step away from original research, or what we call synthesis. In any secondary or tertiary source, every sentence and paragraph must have a citation. We just went through this on another AfD. If you don’t understand that, then you shouldn’t be writing or reviewing articles here. Every student at a community college should know that. Having taught secondary school physics and having written physics articles myself, which were peer reviewed but then rejected for publication, I can state that this is just too cutting edge for an encyclopedia. I can’t, however, figure whether it’s a correct. It’s mostly unsourced, so I can’t evaluate the subject matter. If someone wants to submit this to a journal, they can, or ArXiv, or a blog, or if really inspired they can present it at a SF con, but just not here. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian In my opinion there is no need to characterize the editor efforts here in harshly negative personal terms. The presentation is logical and clear. The sourcing here is quite a bit more extensive than most physics articles I have read and worked on. The bulk of the article is clearly derived from two peer reviewed papers by S. Kuhn; the IEEE should be considered a reliable peer review. Sure a few more paragraphs could have citations, but they would still point to the same two sources. That is the problem: this is basically a summary of on primary source. The issue as pointed out by the other posts here is the lack of secondary sources. Let's try to focus on content and not disparage editors. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Got it. My point was not to bite the newbie. The problem is to distinguish between types of sources. I’ll be more careful. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoarchitectonics

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

Jargon term invented in 1999 that has never been adopted by the wider community. I would just delete it as very little links to it. (If you really, really want the name then do a redirect to nanotechnology, but I am not in favor of that.) Ldm1954 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Everything salvageable in this article is already covered in the Nanotechnology article; the term is a needlessly-technical synonym for "controlled nanoassembly" and, as nom said, has never caught on. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A few-second search brings 30,000+ links to dissimilar Google Books and 3000+ uses in Web of Science, either in the article title or abstract. That is definitely not negligible. According to ref. 1 in the article, nanoarchitectonics is wider than nanotechnology and involves ".. non-nanotechnology fields such as supramolecular chemistry with self-assembly/self-organization [44–47], materials fabrications [48–50], and biotechnology [51–55]". Materialscientist (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I cannot verify your claim of 3000+ uses in WoS, I get 1,175 and many of those that have some cites come from K. Ariga. This compares to 55,639 for nanotechnology and 185,073 for nanoparticle. I will definitely dispute the claim in the lead of the article that producing graphere is part of nanoarchitectonics. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you restrict your search? I search in all fields over Web of Science Core Collection. Ariga contributes to 308 entries out of 3,039, that is 10%. Nanoparticle is a different object class. Nanotechnology is definitely a more popular term than nanoarchitectonics, I am not arguing against that. Surely we can dispute how to class technological processes, such as graphene exfoliation, but I don't see how this would be relevant to a decision to keep/delete an article. Anyway, I think graphene exfoliation in the lede explains "nano-creation" and not necessarily nanoarchitectonics. Materialscientist (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not restrict my search, I am not sure why there is a difference. Let's wait for more opinions, at the moment it would be "no concensus". Ldm1954 (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking a couple pages into those Google Books results, and they seem to stop using the term nanoarchitectonics. In general, GB includes a hefty proportion of near-matches, particularly when the search query itself is a rare term. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism/branding term for an area that is not meaningfully distinct or well-defined. XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2024 (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 redirect‎ to Google. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talks at Google

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

Redirect to Google. Not independently notable and lack of WP:SIGCOV about Talks at Google as a standalone subject. Longhornsg (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Technology, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Google as a viable ATD, per Longhornsg. Sal2100 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Film, Music, Entertainment, Science, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Google.It is not independently notable and fails WP:GNG for a standalone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Pretty much nothing. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, no-brainer. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2024 (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.

Kallakkadal

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

This is not a distinct phenomenon, but rather a local name for swell surge used in coastal Kerala, also known by various names in other parts of the world. Presenting it as a distinct phenomenon is scientifically inaccurate. Additionally, this is not the Malayalam Wikipedia. Per WP:CFORK, this is an unnecessary content fork. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, and India. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough, and I agree that this would be better treated as a more general topic, but I note that Swell (ocean) does not actually contain the term "swell surge", and does not seem to cover this type of phenomenon. Thus more a case for rewriting and generalizing than for redirecting or deleting? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 29 October 2024 (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 keep‎. I see a consensus here to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmalya Ghosh

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

WP:BLP, identified as possible WP:UPE, about a scientist not clearly shown as passing inclusion criteria. This was started in the creator's personal sandbox, going through two rounds of needing to have categories removed from it on WP:USERNOCAT grounds, before the creator (a WP:SPA with no prior edit history apart from this article) tried to move it to a "user" profile, following which it was moved to draftspace by an established editor on the grounds that no user account existed under the username Nirmalya Ghosh -- but then the creator moved it directly to mainspace themselves, following which there's been a full edit war over redraftifying and remainspacing it.
Paid editors, however, are required to use the WP:AFC process so that their articles can be reviewed for compliance with Wikipedia's content rules -- but given the fact that there's already been an edit war over what namespace it was located in, I don't see the point in just moving it back to draftspace again without discussion. Obviously if consensus does land on moving it back to draftspace, it should be move-protected to prevent further edit-warring, but obviously consensus may also just lean toward straight deletion. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and India. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Keep Page reads as WP:PROMO. Mostly sources are poor to unreliable with passing mention and entries and some are primary workplace sources. and does not show any significant achievements noteworthy nationally and internationally to satisfy notability about the subject role as physician. Fails WP:NPROF. RangersRus (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Meets criteria Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#C3. I am not opposed to Draftify either but with move-protected for improvement with reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~. Would not Fellow of Indian Academy of Sciences and Fellow of National Academy of Sciences, India meet PROF? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the sources and the two elected fellowships check out, which meets PROF. There is some indept detail on his research at the G.G Stokes Award citation [1] which might be used to improve the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the paid question, the user id of the creator is the same as the name of lab, so I'd assume someone in the lab such as a PhD student, rather than a typical paid contribution. It would be very helpful if Bionap would explicitly declare any connection. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May need improving per WP:UPE or other COI, but being elected to a National Academy is explicitly listed for WP:NPROF#C3. Cyanochic (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: UPE/COI issues aside, please focus on the notability of the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Gscholar shows over 5700 citations and the two learned society memberships, would seem to be a pass for PROF. Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. His publication record is on the borderline, but the G.G. Stokes Award award reinforces it significantly with #C2 pass. Note, it looks like XOR'easter cleaned up the page which some earlier voters saw. I am voting on the current version. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2024 (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.

History of Science in Latin America and the Caribbean

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

A draft that was moved into mainspace by its creator. Seems to be promoting a scholarly database and no independent sources turned up by a before search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Science, Latin America, and Caribbean. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of a class assignment. It is still in progress, so please don't delete. JuliaerodriguezUNH (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, tell your professor that your grade should not depend upon whether or not you successfully write a Wikipedia article that avoids deletion, because that is out of your control. Second, anything moved out of draft space into the realm of articles is fair game for a deletion debate. Third, if no reliable sources talk about this database, then we can't have an article about it here. Fourth, you've basically copied the original website. For example, it says a virtual archive of over 200 primary sources along with introductions based on the latest scholarly findings, while you wrote a virtual archive containing over 200 primary documents, each accompanied by introductions informed by the latest scholarly research. It says, We hope the database will be useful for teaching, research, or general interest purposes for viewers curious about the history of science. You wrote, This resource is designed to support teaching, research, and general interest, catering to those eager to explore the region's scientific history. It says, For centuries, novelists, politicians, investors, and tourists have looked at Latin America and the Caribbean as an extraordinary place of natural wealth and diverse human populations. You wrote, For centuries, Latin America and the Caribbean have been viewed as regions of natural wealth and diverse populations, attracting explorers and scientists. To be blunt, this is plagiarism by close copying. That's bad. Very bad. XOR'easter (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have guessed, this is my first time doing Wiki anything. My intent was to make the article accessible for my classmates to edit - I did not realize that it went public into a space outside of our class group for the public to view. As such, I have deleted all text..

Obviously that is on me, chalk this up to a learning experience.

I requested to move it back to the draft space and I was not allowed to. Is that, is that because it is pending deletion or user error on my part? I just want to know whether to make edits to this draft or begin a new page.

Thanks for the criticism/help. Traviscnason (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving an article while a deletion discussion is open is generally frowned upon, just because it confuses the situation. If you want to make further edits, you can do those on the article where it is now. I advise two things: start by listing the references that aren't the database itself, and put more work into writing in your own words. The first is necessary because we need references like that to show that the topic merits an article, and the second is necessary to avoid copyright problems. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, so that whatever text is needed for the class assignment can be readded without harm. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holographic direct sound printing

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

Article based upon a 1 month old paper. While it has minor attention in pop science press, its Altmetric of 76 is not particularly high (it would need 200-300). Page is almost completely promo of research from a single group at Concardia University. Considering how active additive manufacturing currently is, much much more is required. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your science. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Canada. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my science. I found about this method of 3D printing in the newspapers and I thought it probably deserves to be mentioned at Wikipedia. Arwenz (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary sources and churned press releases are not a suitable basis for an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - for me the difficulty is that this is WP:TOOSOON (yes I know that's an essay that's not about scientific research, it just seems appropriate) so we don't know how much lasting importance there is about this discovery. I think an argument can be made for !keep given it has been peer reviewed, !delete because it is really just a small number of scientists saying it is important or !draft on the basis it might soon be shown to be important. I'm not sure how to parse it. JMWt (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is very, very rare to have articles just because they are reviewed, we require extensive secondary sources. TOOSOON is very commonly applied to scientific research. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whether or not one links to the WP:TOOSOON essay, it is too soon. Merely getting through peer review is not enough. (If it were, I could have half a dozen articles about my own work...) XOR'easter (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Neeley

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

Neeley is an accomplished woman but is not encyclopedically notable. There isn't much secondary coverage of her nor she does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Mooonswimmer 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Entertainment, Science, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I see little sign of NPROF, with only one highly cited paper that is also very highly coauthored. I am skeptical of GNG -- the NPR piece is somewhat substantial, but the other pieces are either primary (usually authored by the subject) or else do not mention her. The book has gotten some reviews, but these do not list her as an author [2][3]. I considered a redirect to the Story Collider, but as she has moved on from that organization, that doesn't seem to make so much sense. I think this is probably a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting in case I have missed something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this the same person: [4]. a citation factor of 10 or 11 doesn't seem that high, but I'm unsure. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Might pass AUTHOR, with some book reviews for "Escape from the Ivory Tower", [5], [6], [7]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But all three of those say that the book is by Nancy Baron, and do not mention Neeley. Baron does thank Neeley in the acknowledgements (alongside a lot of other folks). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just came to the same conclusion that she did not write the book (and reverted myself when I added one review to Neeley's article) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeley did not write that book. Mooonswimmer 01:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are at least four sources I found in the article for WP:GNG. I'm listing them up here for ease of access. The first one has the most coverage of the subject; the other three are more than just passing mention but less than significant coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Maddie Sofia (January 14, 2020). "Your Brain On Storytelling : Short Wave" (Podcast). NPR. Retrieved 2021-06-02.
2. ~~Wilcox, Christie; Brookshire, Bethany; Goldman, Jason G (2016). Science blogging: the essential guide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300197556. OCLC 920017519.~~
3. Achenbach, Joel (2023-04-09). "Opinion | Why science is so hard to believe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. ProQuest 1655455709.
4. Renken, Elena (11 April 2020). "How Stories Connect And Persuade Us: Unleashing The Brain Power Of Narrative". NPR.org.
5. Sirois, Cheri (April 25, 2024). "Creating connections when we talk about science". Cell (Interview). 187 (9). Cell Press: 2120–2123. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.043. (added to list Oct 21)
Delete. Coverage by the subject themselves, as in the NPR interviews, is not independent or secondary, so does not count towards GNG. She is one of the authors of the science blogging guide so that is not an independent reference either. The WP article has no encyclopedic coverage of her, just quotes and an anecdote about her dad that would be UNDUE. These are not substantial enough for NPROF C7 and definitely not for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with @Nnev66 that she has just enough NPR articles/podcasts for WP:GNG. I think the Short Wave podcast would be enough. Bpuddin (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bpuddin, what is the secondary independent coverage that is in that interview? GNG requires multiple SIGCOV IRS sources, so even a single SIGCOV source (the NPR interviews count as one source) would not be sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disagree that the sources @Nnev66 highlighted don't contribute to GNG; she's being included in them as an expert on science communication, not just a general interview about her or her work. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG typically requires significant coverage. The sources mentioned above do not meet that standard. While being a leading expert in certain fields can make an individual encyclopedically notable, we would need evidence such as frequent citations by peers, a decent number of highly cited scholarly publications, teaching positions, contributions to significant research, or at least explicit statements from reliable sources recognizing them as a top expert in their field. I'd say most people holding a PhD in their fields are experts, but that doesn't make them all notable per Wikipedia's standards, even if they're cited/interviewed in one or two mainstream news outlets as experts. Mooonswimmer 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/update: I've struck the Science blogging book ref in my list for notability above as it is a primary source. I was reading sentences in a Google link to the book that mislead me into thinking there was a section about Neeley - once I got ahold of the book I realized there was no secondary coverage. Regarding the other three references, the NPR ones could be considered one source as they both refer to the Short Wave podcast. By my reading of WP:INTERVIEWS#Notability, I believe they provide significant coverage as the host does synthesis of Neeley's background and credentials and presents it in her own words, thereby making it secondary coverage. As noted above, there is some coverage of Neeley in the WaPo reference - more than passing mention but it could argued not significant coverage. Also added another reference to article I found in the journal Cell which is also an interview but has a mix of primary/secondary coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cell interview definitely does not have "a mix of primary/secondary coverage" -- the only secondary coverage is less than a sentence in the intro: science communicator Liz Neeley, founding partner of Liminal and cofounder of Solving for Science. That's nowhere near SIGCOV...

I also just noticed that the WaPo article is an opinion piece, which is explicitly disallowed from counting towards notability as it's a primary source.

So even if either of the NPR interviews contained IRS SIGCOV (which they do not), we would still need multiple sources to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the WaPo piece is not an opinion piece by Neeley (which would be primary), but she and her work are cited and discussed within it to support the Auchenbach's commentary. (In full, it's an excerpt from a National Geographic feature story "The Age of Disbelief" (March 2015), though most of the Neeley quote and commentary there is as it is in the Post piece.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, opinion pieces are considered primary regardless of what they're covering or who they're by. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except based on the content, the Auchenbach piece isn't an opinion piece. It's from 2015 when the current "Opinions" section was called "Outlook" and ran book reviews, along with opinion pieces, commentary, and analysis. This piece, despite the current "Opinion" label from the Post's website, is clearly secondary in nature, providing analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of research into the ways people process (and deny) scientific evidence. Neeley is quoted and her work referenced as part of that. If the Post's opinion label on an excerpt makes it primary in your mind, then look to the original article: Achenbach, Joel (March 2015) "The Age of Disbelief", National Geographic, 277(3):30–47... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I said the source was to too far from SIGCOV to count towards GNG even before seeing it was labeled an opinion piece, so this doesn't change anything for me. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cell interview is in a reliable source and shows a depth of preparation by the interviewer. In the opening the interviewer notes: You trained in marine biology and conservation, but you also have wide experience in communicating a range of ideas, from neuroscience to the COVID-19 pandemic. From there the interviewer notes the subject's “theory and practice of sensemaking" and asks her to expand on it in the context of telling complicated science-themed stories. The proceeding questions ask the subject to unpack how to write for a general audience and differences between technical writing versus scientific storytelling. The interviewer is synthesizing what the subject says, which I consider secondary, before proceeding on to the next question. Nnev66 (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interviewer just says You’ve said in the past that you’re focused on the “theory and practice of sensemaking.” That has zero secondary content, it's just repeating what the subject has said about themselves. None of the subsequent questions have anything more than that.

Interviewer questions that suggest a "depth of preparation" are still not coverage unless they actually contain secondary analysis of the subject. Otherwise every interview with a couple pointed questions would be considered SIGCOV. And someone's live reactions to another person's statements are exactly what our policy on primary encompasses: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied [...] They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer." The interviewer is a participant in the interview. This is consistent with longstanding practical consensus on interviews at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are perhaps reliable enough to support the claims in the article, but none of them contributes to WP:GNG; they are not simultaneously in-depth, independent, and reliably published. Among Nnev's selection, the first NPR link and Cell are interviews (most content non-independent). The crossed-off book source is a chapter by the subject about self-promotion (a bit of a red flag). The second NPR link and the WaPo piece name-drop her for some quotes but have no depth of coverage about her. And I didn't see much else. That leaves WP:PROF#C1, and her citation record [8], where she was a minor coauthor in a middle position on one well-cited publication on a subject totally unrelated to her science communication work. I don't think we can base an article, especially this article, on that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as a no consensus, which is still my read, but following a request I have decided to relist it because consensus is preferable to kicking this down the road.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not looked into rest of evidence but I agree with David Eppstein that there is not a pass of PROF by citation profile here. Looking at the alphabetisation of the list of Nature paper authors Neeley does not seem to be more than a very minor contributor, and the other moderately cited papers do not meet my expectations. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate

Deletion Review