Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

WP:DSS
WP:DSSCIENCE
WP:AFD/SCI
WP:AFD/SCIENCE

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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science.

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]

Koehler Instrument Company, Inc.[edit]

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

This is not related to the well known plumbing company, but a not so commonly known specialty business who makes laboratory test equipment and offer test services to the oil and gas industry. I see articles authored by "Dr. Raj Shah is a Director at Koehler Instrument Company in New York, where he has worked for the last 28 years." but I'm not seeing much coverage on the company in news or books and does not appear to pass WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Science, and New York. Graywalls (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nano Nuclear Energy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Almost all sources are routine coverage and/or "contributor" or non-independent. Some articles about the broader technology mention the company in passing, but no real coverage of the company itself. Bestagon ⬡ 02:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Science. Bestagon ⬡ 02:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as TOOSOON to tell if this company will someday become notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of statistical mechanics articles[edit]

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

This page is not about anything. Statistical mechanics is the article about statistical mechanics. (It's not even linked here!) Wikipedia is navigated by wikilinks and Wikipedia:Summary style, not by a table-of-contents as this article seems to be. The article is not useful. An overview of statistical mechanics should be in Statistical mechanics. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an index, which navigates articles related to a field. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed to match convention. Might not exactly be an index, though: it's not alphabetical like a lot of the rest. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(@Johnjbarton posted a comment and then deleted it again, check the history) Forgot that moving was part of AFD discussions, figured that if the AFD hadn't been going on I would have just up and moved it anyways, because it seemed to fit. I can move it back and just vote for "Move to Index of statistical mechanics articles" instead if people feel like it's necessary. I figured if it survives it would probably move there anyways, and if it's deleted it doesn't matter what the name is. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrfoogles I deleted my comment because it was incorrect. I thought you had mistyped.

Your move is an improvement. I still think the article is pointless. We should put our energies into statistical mechanics. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy, Mathematics, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also vote Keep. Large enough subject to have index for given the established pattern. Probably can be linked in the See Also of statistical mechanics: serves a minor purpose and doesn’t hurt anything. Does need to be alphabetized but not deleted. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Category:Statistical mechanics shows how many things should be here. If there was a column listing year of discovery and other stats, would it be more useful? Or a description of what each thing is? Dream Focus 03:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the index exactly redundant with Category:Statistical mechanics? If we add information to the index as you suggest aren't we creating a summary article exactly as I advocate we should in statistical mechanics? Johnjbarton (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would all of those relevant entries fit in the other article? Dream Focus 04:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are they related to "statistical mechanics"? Then yes. Otherwise they don't belong in the index either. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the article in the middle of an AFD was also inappropriate; if someone wants to make it into an actual contextual list beyond just pointless bullet-pointed links, the original "List of" name was better. Still, they should be linked in the main article, Template:Statistical mechanics, Template:Statistical mechanics topics, and Category:Statistical mechanics as appropriate, but this serves no additional purpose so Delete or merge. Reywas92^Talk 03:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The columns and information I added shows its a valid navigational list, it allowing more information than the category does. Far more useful for people to find what they are looking for. Dream Focus 04:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make it a section in the main article then. You added empty columns, and a basic list of links this short doesn't need a standalone page. Otherwise draftify. Reywas92^Talk 13:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the change as a bad edit (explanation in edit summary). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:SELFREF, and important topics can be covered in the main topic article much better than a list of random links can provide. Anyone who's interested can also make a sidebar for main topics if they want. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also changing my position to Delete or Merge, given the important links are probably already in Template:Statistical mechanics, etc. It wasn't really a very good index with only 20 articles anyways. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Right now the article is useless. That doesn't mean someone can't create something useful later on who is familiar with the topic. Dream Focus 18:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Sorin Biris[edit]

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

Given the multiple tags, probably worth a full discussion here. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, Romania, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I at least note an overwhelming amount of primary references written by the subject himself. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a GoogleScholar profile for one Alexandru Biris, a student at Politehnica Timișoara, who almost 100% surely piggy-backs on Alexandru Sorin Biris's publication record (all top articles are by AS Biris, and involve nanotechnology and such). If we accept this hypothesis, then the citation record is quite impressive (almost 20K since 2007, with h-index 66 and i10-index 300), though perhaps not that unusual in this field? The most highly cited papers on the GS list have appeared in ACS Nano, which has an impact factor of 17.1. At any rate, one needs to weigh all this against the overbearing self-promotion in the article, and also those "plagiarism and massive data fabrication" issues mentioned there, plus the structural issues regarding the way the article is (very poorly) written and sourced. Turgidson (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, most of the papers in the GS profile appear to belong to the subject of the article here, or at least to someone of the same name at the same university. The highly-cited papers are mostly highly coauthored, but the subject is the last author on two of them (in a field where that matters). It might be weakly enough for WP:NPROF, even in what I believe to be a higher citation field. I am balancing that with WP:TNT. If kept, the article should be stubified. Kannarpady, the WP:BLP policy applies here, and the alleged research misconduct discussed in the article must either be removed or supported by coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and one of the highly-cited last author papers was retracted by the journal. [1][2] Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these publications are joint with his father (or maybe GS groups them together in that profile?). Incidentally, this IEEE profile only mentions 30 publications and 203 citations — a rather large discrepancy with the GS profile. A social network analysis where both authors are mentioned can be found in this MS thesis. Turgidson (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a Romanian, you must be proud of Alexandru Biris. That is why you try all efforts to cover for him. If this is not the reason you nominated this article for deletion, please explain. Kannarpady (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's keep the discussion focused on the article and not the nominator; there's enough to unpack w/o looking at motives. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- the citation counts (in a high citation discipline) and one independent coverage of notability seem barely enough to keep the article. Yes, it has too many dependent sources and isn't our best article (though it is salvagable). The high citations of articles where he is last author (institution director) take away a tiny bit from his notability as a researcher but puts it exactly in notability as a director/leader in higher education research. I could, however, be persuaded to go to either a full keep or weak delete with more evidence. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This Kannarpady who created this article seems to work for this person: https://ualr.edu/nanotechnology/about-us/researchers-and-staff/dr-ganesh-kannarpady/

Seems like personal beef. I would delete this article SleeplessSeatle (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I see some highly cited papers, even in a higher citation field, but middle author (in a field where that matters) on a highly coauthored paper doesn't convince me of so much. There are a couple of highly cited papers where Biris is last author, but one has been retracted for research misconduct. I did some work on trimming this down into shape (as did Turgidson), and it is no longer in WP:TNT territory, but the mess leaves me unconvinced of NPROF. There is definitely room for disagreement on this one, and I can also see policy-based arguments for keeping. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnight Scholars Program[edit]

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

Subject is not independently notable (and notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization). ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Technology, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just do a WP:BOLD redirect to James_Goodnight#Wealth_and_philanthropy, where this is already mentioned; no need to have an AFD for this obvious ATD. Reywas92^Talk 01:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the redirect ATD proposed by Reywas92. I guess there's some benefit in having it the result of a AfD (now that we're already here) in that it's harder to revert. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Information Science and Technology "St. Paul The Apostle"[edit]

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

The article states they have 375 students, which is not a university. Many of the claims look too much, and none are verified. From their own web page the number of faculty is very small. Making a Beowulf cluster is not notable. More significant coverage is needed, this fails almost everything. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment State universities and colleges tend to be notable, although this is a comparatively minor vocational one. It appears reasonably likely that WP:SOURCESEXIST, but searching in Cyrillic is difficult for many of us. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Universities are normally notable, although even by North Macedonian standards this one appears to be quite small (the other public universities in North Macedonia for which we have articles each have more than 10 times as many students as this one). Yes, searching in Macedonian is difficult for us here, but the article in the Macedonian Wikipedia isn't that much better. At worst, though, redirect to List of universities in North Macedonia rather than deleting this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have generally kept universities founded by statute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what policy? The Banner talk 18:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Seconding the policy question. Also, as I stated in the original nomination, I could not verify the claims -- maybe someone else can. For instance, I am doubtful about all the claimed collaborations with universities many times their size, the 14 BA & MA degrees, the ranking. I could not verify any of these. It is easy to write on a web page, but normally we look for verifiability, WP:N. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Based on WP:CONSENSUS over many AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I am asking for a policy. Not for a circular reasoning. The Banner talk 23:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, that policy would be WP:CONSENSUS! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am still asking for a policy that says specifically that we are keeping "universities founded by statute". WP:CONSENSUS does not state that. And saying that we keep universities because we kept universities in the past because we kept universities in the past etc. is a circular reasoning. Not based on any policy. The Banner talk 17:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the top level polytechnic of a nation that was founded by the national government is a notable act in itself. There are numerous US institutions with fewer undergraduates (Caltech) or even 1/10th of the total number of students (Deep Springs College) that are notable, so the size of the institution isn't a determining factor; the significance of the institution to a nation's identity is a glimpse at the importance to a people. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two points:

Please check your numbers, you are way off. Caltech has close to 3 times (1023) the number of undergrads per year, to compare to the total number of 357 for both BS & MS, plus Caltech admitted 1440 grads. https://registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics

You ignored the key point -- essentially nothing on this Wikipedia page is verifiable. The Deep Springs College page has 37 sources, plus stacks of other material that verifies notability.

I politely request that you demonstrate their notability if you want to defend them. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If we are to evaluate only based on the inserted references, then this fails every notability guideline, but if sources in foreign (local) language exist, and are promptly introduced, then things could change. I feel it's necessary that someone with proficiency in the local language performs some searches and shares the results. X (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Ldm1954 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of universities in North Macedonia until proper sourcing can be identified. JoelleJay (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against recreation if sources become available. I conducted some searches in Macedonian but failed to locate significant secondary source coverage. Right now we are doing no service to our readers by having an article unsupported by sources making various dubious claims. AusLondonder (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Redirection to List of universities in North Macedonia is an excellent alternative to deletion. I'm on the fence as far as independent notability, leaning very very slightly on the keep side, essentially per the argument of Necrothesp. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply stating we have kept other articles is not an argument. AusLondonder (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep. I got some help from one of our students here with language. There's an interview with the vice-rector [3], which we probably can't use for facts, but which I think contributes to notability. Substantial piece in Makedonsko Sonce on a potential reorganization [4]. There's coverage in national newspapers related to a labor disagreement [5], and in context of national university organization [6] (for example, lots of stories of the latter type). Lots of coverage in Ohrid News, for example [7][8][9][10]. I found perfoming Google site-searches for "Универзитетот за информатички науки и технологии" to be helpful. Overall, I'm seeing enough consistent coverage over time for a reasonable notability case. As other editors have been saying, this is as one would expect for one of a small number of state universities. I am not impressed with the comparison with CalTech, but I think it might be helpful to compare with e.g. the University of Maine School of Law: a small technical school that is nonetheless of regional importance and wider interest, and that is appropriate for encyclopedic coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to connect reputation to Caltech -- and Deep Springs, Harvey Mudd, or University of Main School of Law is a better analogy to what I meant as my point that size of institution in itself isn't a determinant of notability. Thanks for the better comparison. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leopoldo Soto Norambuena[edit]

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

Article is based entirely on work by the subject and has no evidence of third-party notability. Almost identical to article previously speedy deleted and salted as Leopoldo Soto * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:30, 11 April 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 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am inclined to think they may be notable, but just across the line. --Bedivere (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improve (an unusual vote). Based upon just his publication record he does not qualify (he publishes as Leopoldo Soto), and I could not verify his appointments listed in http://pppp.cl/contenido/investigador.php?varbajada=1. However, with a bit more digging I found https://www.cchen.cl/?p=7217&highlight=Leopol which has more notable information, but I am using Google to translate from Spanish. I think some more digging (and possibly improvement) is needed first by a native Spanish speaker. (Android visual editor messing up?) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science Proposed deletions[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Deletion Review[edit]