Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DSS)
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Science

edit

ELKO theory

edit
ELKO theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article based upon one source which has been cited 4 times, plus a second more cited source that has nothing to do with the topic. The page was previously deleted, and as part of NPR I tagged a newly created version for questionable notability, no significant scientific coverage and in need of better sourcing to avoid a future AfD. Editor User:TakuyaMurata immediately removed the maintenance tag of notability claiming that a Google search indicates that it is notable; I find no evidence of this. Hence time for an AfD as not notable for a more complete discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Perhaps the previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass dimension one fermions is helpful here. There does seem to exist some sufficient amount of publications to justify the notability (please Google with “elko field” too). According to the previous AfD, there is some coi issue, which I cannot tell just from looking at the article alone. But at least the notability is considered, it looked ok to me. Needless to say, the more citations and references there are the better (and more such are probably needed). —- Taku (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just saying "Google it" is absolutely useless for determining notability. What reliable, independent, secondary sources exist now that didn't exist in 2020? XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe not new. But in order to determine if the topic is notable or not, we just look at the amount/quality of publications: Google is a standard way to see that. I suppose you can create the appearance of research activities by citing each other (not saying this one is). That’s not a good practice but Wikipedia isn’t a place to judge whether certain research activities are genuine or not. —- Taku (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Google is not "a standard way to see" how much relevant, peer-reviewed material there is on a topic. General-purpose Google has never been good for that — and grows worse by the day — and even Google Scholar is only useful if employed carefully.
    What peer-reviewed publications, not written by the original inventors of this idea, discuss it in depth? Name three. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think it matters much whether some papers are independent of the creator of the theory. In some field, the originators have a very strong influence; that doesn’t mean the theory is not notable in the eyes of Wikipedia. As a research activity, that’s too promotional and problematic? Perhaps, but again in Wikipedia we don’t judge the quality of the research. I know especially for biographical articles, we need secondary sources but research articles are somehow different (again because of the way some research topics are pursued). The existence of the textbook I mentioned below especially seems a very strong indication for the notability, since the publisher thinks the topic is worth publishing. —- Taku (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it very much matters, by policy. A textbook by one of the authors of the original publication is not an independent source. It's very much the opposite of an independent source. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said above, some research topic just doesn’t develop independent of the originator. That should not be a ground for non-notability. Of course, the textbook isn’t an independent source but, unlike bio articles, it doesn’t mean it is not a reliable source; that part of policy isn’t about like textbooks that can be cited. If interpreted literally, it’s like you can’t cite Grothendieck since he is involved in the creation of scheme theory. It doesn’t work that way when we cover scientific topics; throughout Wikipedia, we do cite plenty of textbooks that are not independent of the subject. —- Taku (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (To add, it seems there is a conflict of reliability: in academia, a primary source is usually considered more reliable than the secondary one. Because of this, even in Wikipedia, for scientific articles, we often prefer to cite textbooks by the authors close to the subject than the secondary ones. —- Taku (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    We can cite textbooks and monographs and review articles by people involved with an article topic. But we don't base notability decisions on them. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For scientific topics, I think a primary textbook can be counted towards the notablity. We have the notability criterion in part because we need reliable sources to write an article. For scientific articles, primary sources can be reliable (arguably more reliable in some instances). So, the existence of such sources could and should be a ground for the notability. Here, it is important to note that the textbook in question is published from a reputable publisher not a self-publishing book. —- Taku (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, primary sources aren't enough. Otherwise anyone who managed to get a paper published in a journal could claim that their work deserves a Wikipedia article. And that just isn't the case. XOR'easter (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, there is apparently a book about the topic according to the previous AfD (I think this one [1], which isn’t a self-published one). That seems significant. Maybe the previous article was promotional in tone (which I don’t know since I can’t see the deleted article), but this article doesn’t sound promotional in tone. —- Taku (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Insufficient sources to support notability. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ninovium

edit
Ninovium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a content fork of Oganesson#Unconfirmed iscovery claims and isotopes of oganesson#Cold fusion, and there is no evidence in any reliable sources of "ninovium" being proposed as a name. Given said lack of sourcing for the name, I propose it be deleted outright, but a case could be made for a plausible redirect. Complex/Rational 22:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, The topic seems to be distinct enough from Oganesson to warrant its own page. The page should instead be renamed to something more on-topic (1999 Oganesson hoax?), as the name Ninovium does not appear in any contemporary sources. TheWikipedianSheep (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of German scientists

edit
List of German scientists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens of thousands of entries. We have much more selective categories (by field by century, by field by state,...), and even better-defined sublists such as List of German chemists, there is no need for this overarching uncurated list. Broc (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. To be even minimally useful such a list would need to include dates and sub-fields, but even if it had those delete would be the right choice. Athel cb (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by Nobel laureates per capita

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of countries by Nobel laureates per capita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is the most egregious example of OR and synth that I ever saw here. "Population figures are the current values, and the number of laureates is given per 10 million." - why should it be? How a population of today's Hungary relevant for Nobel prizes won by people who were born in 19th or early 20th centuries? (The problem is the same for all countries, the example is about Hungary because out of few refs in this list multiple are about Hungarians.) How does EU have 247 Nobel prizes? Surely people who were born and dead long before EU was created shouldn't count. And like that, the whole list is unsourced OR that should be deleted. Artem.G (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using "current values" and then only using 2018 figures doesn't make sense either. If the values are current why not just use the most recent population value available? 14 October 2019 also seems like an arbitrary cutoff date, especially when there's a column for "Laureates in last 10 years (2014-2023)". If the article is going to be kept it should at least be semi-regularly updated properly. Procyon117 (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but even the updated data would make little sense - why should a population of a modern country be used? Population changed a lot in the last hundred years, but this list divides modern population by historical number of Nobel prize winners. Modern Hungary is not Austria-Hungary, with very different population. No serious source use such numbers, that's a pure OR. Artem.G (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's also definitely an issue. Procyon117 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually sourced. Well, if there is nothing to merge, that's fine. One can just make it a redirect.My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is basic division, not original research. These are not baseless claims that others cannot easily replicate. You can quibble about grouping EU countries, but it's not a basis for deletion. In any case someone has already merged some numbers to List of Nobel laureates by country, so that can be completed, with discussion as appropriate. Reywas92Talk 13:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    well, by that logic you can divide current Egyptian population by the number of pharaohs and get 15.77 pharaohs per 10 millions modern Egyptians. No sources, no OR, just division. Artem.G (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the table in List of Nobel laureates by country#Summary is even worse, no sources, no population numbers or years, just mindless division... Artem.G (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we need coverage on pharaohs per capita, but yes, you could put that simple division in an article with a specific source and it would not be original research. Reywas92Talk 17:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's completely nonsensical. WP:CALC says that Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. How on Earth could it possibly be a meaningful reflection of the sources? It's not even a meaningful figure—the modern-day country of Egypt is not the same political entity as the one(s) that had pharaohs, and it makes no sense to use the population of the former to calculate a population density that relates strictly to the latter. If anything, what would make sense for these kinds of calculations would be to use the cumulative population, not any instantanteous one. TompaDompa (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete: to List of Nobel laureates by country. Per 10 million people is a user-generated statistic -- it may be basic division, but its selection was made by the judgement of a user, which is in the direction of original research. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is still basic arithmetic (WP:CALC), presenting it this way rather than per 1 million people doesn't mean it's original research. This is the most mundane "selection", and even if some source uses a different base it may still be an appropriate way to present the number. You can argue this isn't a notable topic as a whole that needs a standalone article, but simple, routine calculations anyone can replicate without complex formulae are not forbidden, regardless how displayed. Reywas92Talk 17:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point on "basic arithmetic", but maybe you can tell me why such calculation makes sense? why should a Nobel prize winner, who was born and died 70 years ago (a hypothetical example), be used in a calculation of how many Nobel prize winners per capita are in a modern country with compeltely different population? Is there any reliable source that gives such statistics? This (now dead) BBC article is used in that list, but even BBC didn't divide number of Nobel prize winners by modern population. Artem.G (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qiu Shi Science and Technology Prize

edit
Qiu Shi Science and Technology Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article from 2012 tagged for speedy deletion 12 years later as unambiguous advertising (criterion G11). The article does contain some promotional language (e.g. "The Qiu Shi Foundation was named after the famous Qiu Shi Academy" and "Cha was best known for his industrial prowess, building a multinational textile conglomerate.") but this is mostly a stub article on a Chinese research prize where there are some examples of the awards being newsworthy, see e.g. [2]. However, while the awards have made it into some news articles, I am unable to determine the independence or reliability of these sources, and none of them are cited in the current article. The sources I have found are also much more about the person receiving the award than the award itself. While the promotional language is not severe enough for it to warrant a speedy deletion, I am bringing it to AFD and recommending delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Shen, Alice (2018-09-17). "Science prizes put technological innovation at the heart of China's progress. Prestigious Hong Kong science foundation rewards the brightest and the best". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "A chemist from mainland China has won a major Hong Kong science prize for his leading global research in the field of bio-inspired nano-materials, highlighting China’s pledge to become an innovation hub in its own right. Jiang Lei received a grant of one million yuan (US$150,000) as winner of the Qiu Shi outstanding scientist award at a ceremony on Saturday night at the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei, Anhui province. ... The prestigious Qiu Shi annual awards – qiu shi means “quest for truth” – was established by the late Hong Kong industrialist and philanthropist Cha Chi-ming, father of Payson Cha Mou-sing, in 1994 and features Nobel laureate Yang Zhenning on its judging panel. Previous Qiu Shi Award winners include Tu Youyou, who went on to receive the Nobel Prize in medicine for the discovery of artemisinin, saving millions of lives from malaria; Pan Jianwei, who later led the launch of the world’s first quantum satellite; and Zhang Yitang, who proved a theorem that had eluded mathematicians for more than a century. This year, in addition to the main prize, 12 outstanding young scientists were each awarded a US$90,000 grant, over three years, in recognition of their returning to China, with all their scientific potential, after overseas education or employment. ... This year, the number of recipients of the outstanding young scientist prize grew from 10 to 12, in line with the foundation’s aim of luring more talent back to China."

    2. "People's Daily article". People's Daily. 2005. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "“求是杰出科学家奖”由香港求是科技基金会的设,这一基金会由查济民及其家族于 1994 年捐资 2000 万美元设立表基金会奖项其后每年评选颁发次,致力于奖励科技领域有成就的中国科技人才,努力推动国家科技进步,已累计奖励了包括“两弹元助"和"神舟五号功臣在内的数百位杰出科学家和 35 岁的潘建伟教授在量子信息论和量子基本问题等世界学术前沿领域取得的一系列开创性成果,"

      From Google Translate: "The "Qiushi Outstanding Scientist Award" was established by the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation, which was established by Cha Jimin and his family in 1994 with a donation of US$20 million. Chinese scientific and technological talents who have made achievements in the field of science and technology have worked hard to promote national scientific and technological progress, and have accumulated awards to hundreds of outstanding scientists including the "Two Bomb Yuanzhu" and "Shenzhou 5 Heroes" and 35-year-old Professor Pan Jianwei for his research in quantum information theory and A series of pioneering achievements in the world's academic frontier fields such as fundamental quantum problems, ..."

    3. Li, Lixia 李丽霞 (2019-09-22). Zhang, Yu 张玉 (ed.). "杨振宁获求是终身成就奖 系史上第二位该奖得主" [Yang Zhenning wins Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Award, becoming the second winner in history]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "据悉，香港求是科技基金会1994年由著名爱国实业家査济民先生创立，秉持“雪中送炭”的宗旨，积极坚持和倡导“科学精神，人文情怀”的核心理念。1994至2019年，共有358位在数学、物理、化学、生物医学及工程信息等科技领域中有杰出成就的中国科学家获得基金会奖励。其中“求是终身成就奖”2位，“杰出科学家奖”31位、“杰出青年学者奖”192位、以及 “杰出科技成就集体奖” 133位（涉及16个重大科研项目，如青蒿素、人工合成牛胰岛素、塔里木盆地沙漠治理、铁基超导、神舟飞船等）。"

      From Google Translate: "It is reported that the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation was founded in 1994 by Mr. Cha Jimin, a famous patriotic industrialist. Adhering to the purpose of "providing timely assistance", it actively adheres to and advocates the core concept of "scientific spirit and humanistic feelings". From 1994 to 2019, a total of 358 Chinese scientists with outstanding achievements in science and technology fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, biomedicine and engineering information received awards from the foundation. Among them, there are 2 "Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Awards", 31 "Outstanding Scientist Awards", 192 "Outstanding Young Scholar Awards", and 133 "Outstanding Scientific and Technological Achievement Group Awards" (involving 16 major scientific research projects, such as artemisinin, synthetic bovine insulin, Tarim Basin desert control, iron-based superconductors, Shenzhou spacecraft, etc.)."

    4. Zhu, Lixin (2015-09-20). "TCM doctor receives 'grand award' from Qiu Shi foundation". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "An 83-year-old Traditional Chinese Medicine doctor was among recipients of Hong Kong Qiu Shi Science and Technologies Foundation awards on Saturday. ... The Outstanding Scientific Research Team Award went to the Hepatitis E Vaccine team from Xiamen University，which invented the world’s first recombinant Hepatitis E Vaccine and made it available on the market in 2012. Ten other young scientists from seven universities and institutes received the Outstanding Young Scholar Award."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Qiu Shi Awards (simplified Chinese: 求是奖; traditional Chinese: 求是獎) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 08:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another easy @Cunard sourcing win, truly one of the GOATs of AfD. BrigadierG (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science Proposed deletions

edit

Science Miscellany for deletion

edit

Science Redirects for discussion

edit
This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 30. (edit | history)
  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate


Deletion Review

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science&oldid=1232804775"