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

Raiyoli Fossil Park

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

Procedural nomination per this conversation at ANI where evidence has been presented that this article was created (at least in part) using AI software. Even if this subject is notable, the use of AI demands that the article be deleted. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, and India. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per LLM concerns. Miniapolis 22:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT which is just an essay, not a policy or guideline but a good idea in this case. Reliability is a must for Wikipedia and LLMs are not reliable -- see WP:OR. Bad refs violate WP:V and may indicate potential bad faith (or cluelessness). I'll reconsider if someone will cut this article back to a notable, properly referenced stub -- ping me in that case. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the wholesale use of an LLM to create the article make it more pretty much useless in an encyclopedic sense. If a trusted user were to exhaustively go through every source, verify that its 100% accurate, and rewrite the whole article, I might change my vote, but at that point, it'd just be much better to start from scratch. Elspamo4 (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Znanost.org

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

The external links are not enough to show notability - for example although the British Council is a reliable source the link does not say enough about the subject of this article. Also if it is notable why is there no Croatian article? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science, Technology, and Croatia. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 17:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 00:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small, non-notable, not widely covered NGO. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of deforestation on soil erosion in Nigeria

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

Reads like an essay, and duplicates Deforestation in Nigeria. Also probably written by AI. SecretSpectre (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, and Geography. SecretSpectre (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 12:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTANESSAY. Also can be covered in Deforestation in Nigeria, although I find nothing to merge since it looks like an LLM output. jolielover♥talk 12:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with Deforestation in Nigeria: Relevant contents merged there, neutrally. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
On a closer look, this is clearly LLM output, so delete as nothing relevant can be merged. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should consider striking your merge vote per WP:AFDFORMAT jolielover♥talk 18:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete There is literally not a single word that has anything to do with Nigeria in this junk article and there's nothing to merge. Sources are largely irrelevant as well, agree this reads like AI. Reywas92^Talk 14:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AI slop, and almost nothing in the article is particular to Nigeria, and what factual information there is, is wholly redundant to deforestation. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A dinosaur tour should have dinosaurs, and an article on deforestation in Nigeria should talk about deforestation in Nigeria. Nothing here is worth preserving via merge. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete this LLM crap that keeps coming forth. Sanctions for the creator accounts spamming these should also be considered. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: AI garbage already covered, as previous nominators have mentioned. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 12:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Interdisciplinary Society

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a nomination. See WP:JNN. Explain or withdraw this AfD. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

18:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator hasn't formulated a proper deletion rationale. This is an academic society that publishes the Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems journal. Not really seeing a benefit to deleting this.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4@Doczilla Do either of you have good enough sources to show that it is notable? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I have not expressed any opinion about this topic whatsoever. I only pointed out that the nomination was inadequately worded. Like I said, read WP:JNN. At the time when you make the nomination, the onus is on you to explain things in the first place. Posting, "Not notable," and nothing else is vaguely akin to having a prosecutor say, "This guy's guilty, so I rest my case," without producing evidence, interviewing a single witness, or making any case whatsoever but then expecting the defense to prove innocence. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 The article about the journal says it is published by znanost.org Chidgk1 (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Puschmann

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

Lack of notability. Sabirkir (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Finance, Science, Economics, Germany, and Switzerland. Sabirkir (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Despite having a decent amount of citations as per Google Scholar, (asaik) he has not made any foundational or major pedagocial publications. Neither does he hold any elevated academic positions which would make hime notable under the SNG ACADEMIC. There is also no secondary coverage of his person from outside of academia, so general noatbility is not cleared either. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-keep. He is the top editor of a significant book series in his field published by Springer Publishing. While it doesn't exactly fit criteria 8 of WP:NACADEMIC; I do think the series is equivalent to editing a top journal in his field. Under the spirit of criteria 8 I would say he does meet NACADEMIC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Hall of Fame

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

Cannot find any decent in-depth coverage. Anyone can start a vanity award. There is no money or any real kudois attached to this award. And this article has quickly led to lots of other articles being spammed with links to this so-called award. Edwardx (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not think it is fair to call this a "vanity award" or "so-called award" without proof. Most of the recipients are notable, as can be seen from the column of mostly blue links to the names of recipients. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Eastmain. That some of the recipients are notable counts for nothing, as no one has to give their permission to be given an award from anyone else. YouTube is not a suitable ref, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Edwardx (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Arts, Awards, Organizations, Science, Sports, Asia, United States of America, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't seen in-depth secondary coverage either that would satisfy WP:GNG, and nothing really independent beyond things like press releases or articles focusing on the awardees. The mention of awardees having their own BLP pages isn't relevant here and would run against WP:INHERIT. We don't chain notability of one page to the notability of another. This is a notability discussion for the WP:NORG, not those other pages. Coverage of the group itself appears to be pretty trivial rather than substantial too. KoA (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some coverage in digitised newspapers, and in news stories found through a google search (including in news media in Asian countries). References could certainly be added for the inductees. Some of the sources also have more information about the Hall of Fame and the Robert Chinn Foundation, which could also be added to the article. According to the sources, it is a non-profit charity, and does provide support to various beneficiaries. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, RebeccaGreen. You say that there are sources, but have not added any here or to the article itself. WP:ORG sets a higher bar for this sort of article than for most other article types. Edwardx (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet WP:NONPROFIT. I added some materials and agree with RebeccaGreen. There are usable materials behind pay walls, but here is one example of WP:SIGCOV that anyone can view. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added 60 references to the article. A WP:BEFORE was obviously not done.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you 4meter4, I had been following this hoping for a RESCUE because this is certainly a notable organization and honor, is far from the appalling comparison to a vanity award and is very appropriate to mention in other articles. And hopefully the nom knows well now that nobody cares if this has a monetary reward. Nathannah • 📮 00:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time-dependent neutronics and temperatures

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

Two sentence page on a computer code with no obvious notability, fails WP:NSOFT. Notability was tagged in 2012; PROD, PROD2 Aug 12-13 2025, at that time the page had no sources. Notability was contested with the claim "Further easy-to-read articles are available using Google Scholar", and PROD/PROD2 removed. Contestor added one source that is not specific to the topic -- it describes a code comparison, not the code. That source is cited 2 times. The current article is advertising/promo for the code and the authors, and would be better included as a sentence in Neutron transport#Computational methods. If major WP:HEY is done to show that this code has major uses in ongoing reactor design I would retract the nomination. I do not see sufficient coverage on Google Scholar to merit retaining it. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, Physics, and Software. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the page Neutron transport#Computer codes used in neutron transport lists 33 computer codes, 2 of which (MCNP & Serpent (software)) have pages with 17 and 5 sources respectively. This code is only mentioned in the "See Also".Ldm1954 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far, I haven't had much luck finding sources that talk about this software as a thing, rather than mentioning how they used it for a particular problem. I don't think that's enough to merit an article. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everyone knows that we have never published original research such as this. There are many other places, but not us. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - responding to Ldm1954's comments:

First, my "further easy-to-read articles are available using Google Scholar" comment was meant to be humorous; a quick look at the neutron transport equation shows neutron flux calculations are mathematically vexatious which is why multiple computer codes have been developed. At least they sure were vexatious to me many years ago.

I don't know if this code is used much now for reactor design; high-temperature gas-cooled reactors are not a hot research area now compared to other reactor types. There's just one HGTR design, the Xe-100, among the several dozen new reactor designs under development. All the papers that use this code were published a while ago when computers were slower; I'd hope HGTR engineers are using something newer nowadays. That said, our rules don't require this code be in wide use now to be notable; if something was once notable, it still is now.

The paper I cited^[1] is relevant; it compares this code to a newer code. This and other papers^[2][3][4][5] demonstrate this was a widely used program.

I don't have a dog in this fight; I just look at the article, the AfD and the information that's out there and check them against our rules.

All this said, I concede not in the same league technically as Ldm1954 (Laurence D. Marks) so I may be wrong about this one. It took a lot of work to understand neutron transport years ago and I've forgotten the details since. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B., as a quick clarification, this page was tagged for both notability and no sources since at least 2013. You removed the notability tag on August 13 2025, so WP:NOTTEMPORARY does not apply here. Checking the 4 sources you provided, on Google Scholar their citation numbers are 8, 5, 5, 8. Sorry, but those numbers are not strong indicators that the scientific community has considered this code to be notable. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: to be fully WP:NPOV, a Google Scholar search on TINTE code does find a few better cited papers, including this one with 95 cites. However, that is not a big number. It can be compared to MCNP where the main paper has 3697 cites. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article was prevously PROD'd so a Soft deletion is not possible and we need to hear from more editors. I'm also not sure if A.B. is arguing for a Keep but they know Wikipedia as much as anyone so I assume they would have stated this fact if it was their stance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, thanks for the compliment about my wiki-savvy; if only I was still as nuclear engineering savvy, I'd be more helpful. My comment was not a keep but rather a clarifying response to Ldm1954's remarks about my PROD removal. I've since found a book on high temperature gas reactors that uses TINTE and I'm going to study it. For now, I'm inclined to say TINTE qualifies as notable but from an editorial standpoint, we may be better served putting it in the list at Neutron transport#Computer codes used in neutron transport, then redirecting it there. I like redirects and lists since they help densify our content for easier maintenance without giving up much content. I realize this is still not an answer for you but it's where I'm at now.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neutron transport#Computer codes used in neutron transport.4meter4 (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note, as Ldm1954 pointed out, that the Neutron transport page only mentions TINTE in its See also section, potentially making a merge-less redirect problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX, that is not a problem. We would remove the See Also and add TINTE to the existing list of codes with a ref. I am OK with a merge+redirect. I think A. B. may be OK with that from his comments, and perhaps Bearian? Ldm1954 (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- A merge and redirect is appropriate for original content. Bearian (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge and redirect per Ldm1954. I'm sorry I didn't get time to review the HGTR book but I think this will work fine. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect for now per above. This could almost certainly be a reasonable short article forever, but it'll take someone with the time and energy to dig out and build it. For now merge. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Science Proposed deletions

Flow arrangement (via WP:PROD on 17 January 2025)
Reiner Kümmel (via WP:PROD on 16 January 2025)
Measure (physics) (via WP:PROD on 7 December 2024)
Evolution equations in high-energy particle physics (via WP:PROD on 4 December 2024)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Contents

Science

Raiyoli Fossil Park

Znanost.org

Effects of deforestation on soil erosion in Nigeria

Croatian Interdisciplinary Society

Thomas Puschmann

Asian Hall of Fame

Time-dependent neutronics and temperatures

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Deletion Review