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

Roger Jones (physicist)

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

Massive conflict of interest issues with a good amount of the edits coming from the subject of the article himself. Some of the sources appear to be dead. Any other sources don't even mention him, focusing more on the actual companies he claimed to have some involvement in. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, Computing, Italy, Florida, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 10 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 [1][2]. 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: [3]. 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", [4], [5], [6]. 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]

Yihua Zheng

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

Nothing to indicate that WP:NPROF is met, nor WP:BASIC. A WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing. Was draftified for a chance to develop it, but instead it was moved back to mainspace with no changes. bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence at all of notability. Deb (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see high-enough citation counts for WP:PROF#C1. Most of the sources are deadlinks; the "new breed", IEEE Xplore, and "Space Physics and Space Weather Scientist" ones are live, but non-independent (the first and third were written by her employer and the second is just a self-written author profile). So we do not have the independent and in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, China, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Her name is too common,and someone else has got the Google Scholar entry. She is starting to get some attention with moderately cited papers, and counting by hand I make her h-factor to be 15-17 in a medium citation area. That is not quite enough for me, it is WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Ventures

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

Low quality sourcing on the page, little else seen in good quality third party sources to show that this subject has notability outside of University of Warwick. Anything which has significance could be merged there. JMWt (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and England. JMWt (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the creator of the page is User:Warwickventures which would appear to have undisclosed COI issues. JMWt (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 1 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!} 06:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lectka enantioselective beta-lactam synthesis

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

A couple of primary sources in the scientific literature do not show this topic meets WP:GNG, nor does it demonstrate that the topic merits a named reaction after the corresponding author. The current content is likely inaccessible to most readers. There may be some content that could be merged into β-Lactam#Synthesis. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. The only two sources are obscure papers written by the person for whom the process is named. This is borderline original research - akin to synthesis. We just don’t do that here. Bearian (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into β-Lactam#Synthesis. The fact is that there are reliable sources (and not by Lectka) on this topic, as following: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=O6ATDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA296&dq=Lectka+enantioselective+beta-lactam+synthesis&ots=ws2tn1YX9x&sig=GYBJX6WsGPmh7IcJp8TF4wEqTOU (Page 311), https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=B4cjEQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA78&dq=Lectka+enantioselective+beta-lactam+synthesis&ots=eO8rdQmHOu&sig=MfXw_uyFnnHaBBlk-Gnj5kEcXfc (Page 100), https://doi.org/10.1021/ja012427r, Thus, I don't agree that it violates WP:OR. However, there's indeed no mentioning in the sources of the reaction being named after Lectka, thereby violating WP:GNG, so I would propose a merge. Pygos (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can identify specific text that is actually good enough to merit merging. XOR'easter (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 167

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

Could not find any individual coverage on this object. Should redirect to List of IC objects.

Added after Praemonitus's vote: While there is coverage of the group it is a part of, I couldn't find any coverage of the object specifically. Sir MemeGod  18:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  18:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's borderline. I find brief discussions of IC 167 in a few studies, particularly of the NGC 697 group. Praemonitus (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Per Praemonitus. Potential academic interest due to interaction with NGC 694. Svartner (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NASTRO. Though individual coverage of the topic is rare, there is "significant commentary" on this object. Interaction with NGC 694 is also of academic interest, per Svartner. Pygos (talk) 03:34, 5 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