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

Mohan Singh Kothari

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

BLP of an engineer created by a likely meatpuppet. Contains swathes of unsourced claims and no clear claim of notability despite many expansive statements. Mccapra (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Engineering, and Indiana. Mccapra (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sign of notability. His LinkedIn says "refer wikipedia" for information so this is likely some attempt to promote. Surprised it survived this long. C F A 💬 22:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rajasthan, Louisiana, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Action Memorandum 235

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

Delete or redirect to Presidency of John F. Kennedy as WP:AtD. One of hundreds of executive actions by President John Kennedy, not all of which have notability as evidenced by their WP:LASTING significance of WP:SIGCOV. There are some passing references [1] [2] in books, but nothing that justifies a standalone article or that can't be covered in better context in the redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect There's literally no content or secondary sources here, just the text that could be at Wikisource. Next time try PROD or a bold BLAR and see if anyone objects. Reywas92^Talk 16:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homogeneity and heterogeneity

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

nothing in common except the name; the main topic is already split: Homogeneous and heterogeneous mixtures. fgnievinski (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve H&H as mixtures may indeed already be a section elsewhere; but that’s not the only interpretation. Budding mathematicians might be interested in the mathematical meanings of H&H, and for them I’d like to see the current short paragraph expanded rather than swept away altogether. Nick Levine (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's notable, it ought be split to H&H (mathematics). fgnievinski (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important distinction for binary relations. — Rgdboer (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it's already well covered in Homogeneous relation. fgnievinski (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article, the entire purpose of which is to explain how a concept may be applied in related ways across a number of different fields, as this coordinate pair of terms does. BD2412 T 01:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fossil sites

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

Like the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of archaeological sites by continent and age, this is just too broad for a single list article. Looking at the article, it isn't even clear what a "fossil site" even is. Many of the listed iems are geological formations, which are typically geographically extensive and therefore not "sites". Listing fossil sites by region is already effectively done by categories (e.g Category:Paleontological sites). Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You only list those notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it a valid navigational list, with more information than a category can have, so more useful. Category:Paleontological sites exist so perhaps a rename is in order to list of Paleontological sites. Dream Focus 16:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dream Focus, it's a good navigational list. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of the arguments from the previous discussion about deleting this list still apply (I can’t seem to track down the archive entry for that deletion discussion, despite having reread it least week? Now, the same search brings me to this current discussion. I think the previous one was in 2017). My summary of that and past talk page discussions:

This list is far more useful than a category or set of categories because it has more information than categories can include.
This list can be sorted in multiple ways (primary notability, age, continent or country). From a geology perspective, sorting by time period is often more important/interesting than sorting by region. Some people sort by notability or use the tags to find types of sites. If we split it up, we have to maintain lists or categories for all of combinations of sorts and sub-sorts. (And then we get to argue about where to put the divisions between time periods in the past couple million years).
We have, in fact, made a solid attempt at defining a fossil site. The reason entire formations are listed is because some formations outcrop at many sites in a general region and listing every outcrop is neither feasible nor particularly useful. This has been discussed in the Talk at some length and is mentioned in the list intro. Ideally such formations would each have a listed type locality or primary site, but no one has yet done the research to add those to every previously listed formation. (Sometimes these localities are already in the primary article for a formation, but no one has yet added them here.)
If we actually apply the inclusion criteria discussed in Talk to delete list entries (rather than just to new additions) the list will get tidier. Deleting the list itself would remove a valuable and popular navigational tool.

Elriana (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And mention only those that are notable. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like this will be kept (fine with me), but it needs to be cleaned up. I'll say more on the article talk page. - Donald Albury 23:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BioSense

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

Fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV in secondary or tertiary sources to establish independent notability. A couple passing, definitional, mentions in books, but not enough for this encyclopedia. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral WP:SIGCOV might apply. I found some mentions that are more-than-passing-mentions that are outside of cdc.gov, including this news article https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/cdc-realign-biosense-focus-most-populous-cities-0 and this GAO report https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-100.pdf. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first I would classify as WP:ROUTINE of budget requests. To the second, one GAO report in 25 years would speak to its non-notability. Longhornsg (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate

Deletion Review