From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
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:
Purge page cache watch


Science

Quantum weirdness

Quantum weirdness (  | 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)

PRODded with the following statement:

Not notable. Only a single reference, a book by this name. Science is the study of things that do no match common sense: "weirdness" is not thing in physics. We have plenty of articles on QM.
—  User:Johnjbarton 17:52, 16 March 2024

Then it was deprodded by a user who added a large volume of references that are about quantum mechanics and also have this cliché in the title:

deprod; notability of a topic is not defined by the number of references in the article but by the coverage in multiple independent reliable sources
—  User:Lambiam 12:30, 18 March 2024

The actual problem is that the article is just a WP:DICDEF — nothing here shows that there is a distinct concept from QM itself. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment – more than any other content policy, every time I try to drill down on what WP:NOTADICT means for the encyclopedia I come up empty. Given that we live in a world of abstracted descriptors, it's very often unclear what boundary there is between term and concept. Is quantum weirdness the same thing as quantum mechanics? No—does the notion of it belong in any single article about quantum mechanics? Probably also no. Is it thereby a distinct concept within the total discourse on quantum mechanics? I do not know. Remsense 诉 11:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) reply
A good example is the article Bare particle, which in its current form is not much more than a definition (and unsourced at that), but this is no reason to seek its deletion.  -- Lambiam 09:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. I will ignore the issue of whether the science in the article is meaningful, since that does not matter for my vote. This is very much a classic dictionary definition, see the specific description. The current article is just a list without encyclopedic content. To be an article it would have to cite information from numerous secondary sources to establish that this is a real, scientific topic of note. (As you might guess, I don't consider the concept of this article notable or sound science, but we don't need that to decide on deletion.) Ldm1954 ( talk) 12:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. [Disclosure: I am the original article creator.] I do not really understand the arguments for deletion. The term is widely used, also by notable eminent physicists. I created the article (as a stub) because this is a term that is also regularly found in the literature without accompanying explanation, so users might want to look it up to find out more about the concept. Since whole books have been written about this, there is definitely room for expansion, although, if not carefully done, this may lead to unnecessary overlap with existing articles.  -- Lambiam 14:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The topic has coverage by a number of sources. The article being just a definition at this point isn't sufficient for deletion - AfD doesn't exist to establish whether an article needs cleanup or expansion. Cortador ( talk) 17:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Please note that the following sentence was removed (twice) from the article:
Many "interpretations" of quantum mechanics have been proposed as explanations of such quantum phenomena in a form that is interpretable in terms of everyday, macroscopic experience; none of these has found wide acceptance.
While perhaps not that important, since the same information can be found in the article Interpretations of quantum mechanics listed in the See also section, it should be clear from this (now missing) sentence that this stub covers more than just a dictionary definition.  -- Lambiam 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati (  | 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)

Tried to improve the article but I failed to improve it per WP:SNG as well as others. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 16:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources and qualifies for WP:GNG. It have both WP: PRIMARY and WP: SECONDARY sources mentioned as references. It also has historical importance as it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region. - AjayDas ( talk) 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I was also not in favor to delete it. But I couldn't find sufficient references to establish the WP:GNG. If you can demonstrate the notability with sourcing, please do it. Otherwise, just a! vote and " it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region." is not helping it anyhow.
Twinkle1990 ( talk) 14:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC) reply

List of explorations

List of explorations (  | 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)

Appears to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list without clear inclusion criteria. It states that it has the most "important" explorations without referencing who calls them important besides the article creator. Even if notable, it would fall under WP:TNT and is invalid as a navigational list as it does not link to articles specifically about those explorations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah so. That should link to Complex society#States then, I guess? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, edit, and update. A 2001 long-term article, the page lists the first sponsored human expeditions of various locals. The topic is notable, links to various expeditionary pages, and groups these expeditions on one page. The criteria needs to be worded differently, but that's a minor point in the overall scope of the page. Randy Kryn ( talk) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    See WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Essays have some who agree and others who disagree. Early Wikipedia articles which have stood the test of 23 years of time should receive more leeway and correction. This one has a very good premise which can be refined and expanded. Randy Kryn ( talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Well, on the one hand, this is a very bare-bones list, and seems to have been so for quite a while. There's no real context, and it isn't exactly the best-formatted list ever. That said, I do think that the idea behind it is notable enough. I personally think that it should be rewritten as prose and moved to History of human exploration, but it could also be rewritten as prose and merged with History of human migration (though they are substantially different, especially when it comes to things like oceans or planets). I don't think keeping it as a list is a good idea, even though List of explorers is a good, closely related list, as explorations really should have some explanation and context to them, whereas explorers don't really need that. Ships & Space( Edits) 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would agree with Ships&Space. Overhauling should be done, not deletion. Lorstaking ( talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I am not opposed to a rewrite as a prose article. But in the 23 years the article has been around, nothing has been done to fix the problem. I am not sure why you believe it will be fixed in another 23 years. A deletion may encourage a new article to be created that is actually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Okhotnykovo Solar Park

Okhotnykovo Solar Park (  | 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 solar power plant is so tiny that it is not notable and not worth anyone wasting time cleaning up the article Chidgk1 ( talk) 08:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 ( talk) 08:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It seems this plant was quite large at the time it was opened so I've looked for somewhere to merge the article to. But it seems it was never quite big enough or important enough to belong on any pages about solar globally or domestically. Looking for further sources, I found information about the consequences of the Russian occupation of Crimea on Australian-built solar parks like this. But none of the references I found named this plant and I feel forced to conclude that it is not really notable. Mgp28 ( talk) 22:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Philip Thorpe Priestley

Philip Thorpe Priestley (  | 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)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years, never ref'd correctly. May pass WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creep Talk 09:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: No hits at all in Jstor, Gscholar, Gnews. I don't think this scientist is hitting notability criteria here, with a lack of coverage. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Deletion Review

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science&oldid=1223939595"