Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rusf10 (talk | contribs) at 01:22, 6 April 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seismicity of the New York City area.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seismicity of the New York City area

Seismicity of the New York City area (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)

Why do we even have this topic? Earthquakes in New York are rare. Seems like WP:NOTNEWS. But even most of the sources used in this article aren't really specific to New York earthquakes. We don't even have an article about seismicity of San Francisco which probably would be more appropriate.I could see incorporating some of this into an article about Earthquakes in the eastern United States, but we don't even have that. Articles about New York do not get auto-notability, just because its New York. Rusf10 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of deleting this article because the corresponding article for San Francisco does not exist, we should create the article about San Francisco. 104.162.205.129 (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think San Francisco is mostly covered at the articles for the named faults because it has named faults. The geological dynamics at the transform plate boundary are different than what is seen in the Northeast, where the pressure from divergent plate dynamics causes different patterns of earthquakes. The earthquakes in the Northeast are not less serious, they just don't always occur in the same place. I can focus the article more on New York specifically but I'm not seeing a reason to delete it. NeonSpectre (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While an article could be created for today's earthquake I think that may be a little NOTNEWS-y. The article was moved to this title today. The previous title was better. Other titles might be even better. It includes the historic New York earthquakes about which much has been written, and the historic earthquakes that were felt in New York. I don't really care that we don't have an article about San Francisco, but you can write one if you want to. NeonSpectre (talk) NeonSpectre (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think my point here was missed entirely, it was not that we need an article about San Francisco earthquakes, it was why does New York gets its own article when we could actually have a legitimate article about the earthquakes in the eastern Untied States which would be notable have seems to have plenty of sources, unlike this where its just using bits and pieces of other sources that are focused on a broader topic or just news articles about a particular event.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already started the process of splitting the general content about the eastern United States and focusing the article on New York CityState. I wasn't very concerned about the title when another editor moved the article to Seismicity of the New York City area. Your complaint seems to be about New York though which I don't get. There are many easy to find sources for the Seismicity of New York State. NeonSpectre (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? see WP:NOTAVOTE--Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? because the seismicity of any major region is notable. Page isn't entitled “New York gets lots of earthquakes," and the documented rarity of a phenomenon in a region is notable as its documented commonality. Look at Snow in Florida. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally, an article for "Earthquakes in the eastern United States" sounds like a great idea. But it does not currently exist. This article may be thin and perhaps could use a clean-up, but this is a situation where the issue is not that we've got an article for a specific locale, but that we DON'T have a better extant overarching article, or one for other regions (as mentioned, such as San Francisco). DarkSide830 (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a two-pronged issue, but I do think this meets the GNG, independent of the existence (or lack thereof) of articles about the seismicity of other regions.
  • There are scholarly sources like this, this, this, this, or this, in addition to resources like this. This doesn't even include the news and magazine articles that address the subject. If you're talking about seismicity in New York state, the reason for the AFD makes even less sense, as probably hundreds of scholarly sources exist about earthquakes in New York (e.g. the western part of the state).
  • Furthermore, I don't see how an article on the seismicity of NYC, or earthquakes in NYC, precludes the creation of an article about earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area or even the eastern U.S. Even if there wasn't enough material to warrant a separate article about NYC earthquakes/seismicity, it still does not prevent the scope of this article from being expanded to cover the eastern U.S.
– Epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While I understand the recent news of an earthquake that happened not too far from here, the recent spur in attention regarding to the earthquake may help improve the article. I honestly believe it could have been better if there were some work to be added and as mentioned from others, it already has met some requirements that other users mentioned. 20chances (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rarity of earthquakes in the NYC area and thus explanations for their occurrence have been the focus of numerous reliable sources (e.g., those presented by Epicgenius) that would satisfy GNG. Such an article would also provide a place to discuss earthquakes that may not be individually notable (to not run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS for each one), and could readily be expanded in scope to include the northeastern US if the NYC area is too specific. The nomination statement also appears to rely somewhat heavily on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and scope and sourcing issues are better addressed with cleanup than deletion. Complex/Rational 21:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic for this article is not centered around news of latest events, even if a section is. This topic has been proved to meet GNG and is more of a scientific topic than one focused on just "earthquakes that happened in New York." VarietyEditor (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SciTech (magazine)

SciTech (magazine) (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)

Not seeing this pass WP:NCORP Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY, and move to SciTechDaily. Although its URL has always been scitechdaily.com, the site was originally called Sci Tech Daily Review; it is currently called SciTechDaily (one word) but the name appears variously as SciTech Daily or Sci Tech Daily, making the search for coverage trickier than it may seem at first. Coverage establishing notability include the 1999 review in The Independent which rated Sci Tech Daily as "the best science news site" at the time – better than Science Daily, The New Scientist and Scientific American, "if you [could] accept its perfunctory design". More recently, there was an in-depth review in CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries in 2015, which briefly covers the history of SciTechDaily; describes its format; and analyzes its content in comparison with Science Daily, noting that "SciTechDaily appears to edit sources more heavily for readability and publishes fewer articles overall and so may be preferred by those who find ScienceDaily overwhelming". The fact that it was nominated for a Webby led to a 2002 article in USA Today, about how the founder and her business partner set off 1,000 rockets in New Zealand to celebrate. There are many other reviews and articles recommending scitechdaily.com in newspapers such as The Courier Mail in Brisbane (2002) and The New York Times (1998) and again in 2000; industry trade publications such as Design News (2000); and academic journal articles such as The Lancet in 2000. These and other links have been added to the expanded article now. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this SciTechDaily is a popular science website, the most relevant notability criteria is WP:WEBSITE rather than WP:NCORP. The sources listed above demonstrate that the website fulfills WP:WEBCRIT #1 and #2 (short list for Webby award). @Hemiauchenia: Request reconsideration of expanded article in light of the above. I have also added one more article from New Zealand Herald since yesterday about SciTechDaily following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble laser

Bubble laser (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)

Classic example of WP:TOOSOON. Article is based upon a Jan 2024 paper which made a minor splash with popular science blogs and journals. There is no true evidence of notability, this type of article is not what Wikipedia is for. The topic could be returned to in a year if many others copy it. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The WP:GNG is the way we determine notability. Simply that a topic is new does not preclude it from being notable. Regarding the one-year test,

Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. -- WP:NTEMP

Therefore, I believe there is no need for a year-long wait as you suggest, because the subject meets the GNG. I will substantiate that below:
This topic has recieved significant coverage (full-length articles) in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. These include:
I believe that these sources provide "true evidence of notability" as specified in the GNG. I don't think there are extra subject-specific criteria that would apply to this article. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are citing popular science articles not full fledged referred articles. If there were 30 arXiv by others already then that would indicate that the scientific community considered it valid and notable, without that it is classic WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASLA

NASLA (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)

Page describes a project which started in 2010, and based upon https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/262209/reporting/it is now finished. The project webpage now links somewhere else, and I could not find anything on it on the web except for other uses of the name. A relic. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Chiral resolution. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chirotechnology

Chirotechnology (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)

Purely a definition of a term which is based upon a single source. A Google search finds very little beyond links to the same book, a small number of articles and a few companies that have names that are a variation of Chirotechnology. It is not a common term, so I do not see any rationale for keeping this page. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muneer Alshowkan

Muneer Alshowkan (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)

Alshowkan doesn't seem to meet any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria, having reached Assistant Professor before leaving for industry. His current post (from the references) is "postdoctoral scholar". His important work seems to have been done as part of a team at Oak Ridge. Considering WP:BIO, there are some prizes ('top 100' listing in an industry magazine), but this doesn't seem sufficiently notable. My searches don't find more to add to the notability argument (including looking at Scopus and Google Scholar listings, which are linked). Klbrain (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Connecticut, New York, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The job titles are largely irrelevant, and ORNL is a government research lab, not "industry". But for someone who works there, the relevant criteria are still most of the same ones under WP:PROF, with maybe #C5 out of reach but the rest still relevant. His citation record [1] is not enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1, and we have no evidence of any of the other criteria (such as being elected as a fellow of a major research society). I don't think the R&D World magazine listicle [2] counts towards WP:GNG or anything else, because it is not a significant national-level honor (merely the topic one of 100 spammy short articles per year in a certain magazine) and the article does not even mention Alshowkan. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. With an h-factor of 12 and 61 publications he is not even close to WP:PROF. I also have some concerns about the award, since it is not an independent sources -- if it is real then there will be one. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Also substantial copyvio. Complex/Rational 23:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phi complex

Phi complex (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)

Cannot find more than two or three sources on Google scholar User:Sawerchessread (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 2. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 20:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G12 and WP:TNT as press-release copyvio that no one has cared enough to write more about since 2007. Well, to be fair, some of it was copied out of the underlying article, too. For example, the PNAS abstract reads, High-resolution spectral analysis of electrical brain activity before and during visually mediated social coordination revealed a marked depression in occipital alpha and rolandic mu rhythms during social interaction that was independent of whether behavior was coordinated or not. In contrast, a pair of oscillatory components (phi1 and phi2) located above right centro-parietal cortex distinguished effective from ineffective coordination: increase of phi1 favored independent behavior and increase of phi2 favored coordinated behavior. Meanwhile, this article says, The study demonstrated a clear reduction in occipital lobe alpha wave and mu wave rhythms during social interaction. The evident suppression was independent of whether or not behavior was coordinated. In contrast, a pair of oscillatory components (phi-1 and phi-2) above the right centro-parietal cortex distinguished effective from ineffective coordination. An increase of phi-1 favored independent behavior and increase of phi-2 favored coordinated behavior. So, what wasn't ripped off from the press release was ripped off from the paper. Beyond the legal issues, we should have more respect for ourselves than to host material like this. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per above there is Copyvio and also only one citation. Maxcreator (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha factor

Alpha factor (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 appears to be a definition of a parameter during solidification. It has no general context, does not appear to be notable and I find essentially nothing about it in a Google search. If someone wants to add context to repair it I will withdraw the nomination, but to me it does not belong on Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Jackson alpha factor is a dimensionless parameter stemming from Jackson's classical mean-field theory of crystal growth. Its value indicates whether a crystal growth interface is smooth or rough, analogous to a Reynolds number. In addition to the two books cited in the article, there are other secondary sources discussing the concept such as [3] and [4]. While it is not a hugely notable concept, it seems well-verified in secondary reliable sources and IMO passes the test for notability per WP:GNG. As part of the history of crystal growth modeling, it could have a place on Wikipedia. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark viking, please then include the context. As written only someone who has worked in the area will have an idea what it is for. For instance:
    • It's relevance for flat surfaces in the lead (what you say above, expanded)
    • Links to experimental verification and the other sources you mention
    • Limitations (can be brief)
    • A Figure would be good
    Currently it fails the readers first test. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Terrible math formatting, but a wiki-notable concept. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Liem

David S. Liem (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)

There is no notability claim in the article other than a those related to postdoctoral work on hepatology and that the a frog (Taudactylus liemi)) was named after him. WP:NACADEMIC isn't met (unsurprising given that most of his career is outside of academia), and there are no other claims. I haven't been able to find other material supporting notability for this David Liem. Klbrain (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, while I acknowledge the current scarcity of sources provided for David Liem's Wikipedia article, it's important to consider the context in which the article was created. At the time of its creation, my primary focus was on promptly documenting Liem's contributions, particularly his discovery of the Rheobatrachus silus species. This urgency made me reach the realization that including Liem's page would complete and improve the species' article. Sources probably exist out there and we shouldn’t just delete it per WP:NPOSSIBLE. V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I must address the procedural concerns surrounding the deletion request. The unilateral decision to move the article to a different page (Eungella tinker frog) without prior consultation or discussion is concerning and goes against the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Subsequently proposing the deletion of the article without engaging in constructive dialogue further exacerbates this issue as the person that nominated the article for deletion seems to have done it spontaneously. V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that this is all a bit blunt V.B.Sepanza, and thanks for your contributions to the project. The move was part of the new page patrol protocol which doesn't include or expect consultation prior to moves; I marked the move as bold, and don't mind being reversed. The next step, having been reversed, is to seek wider views here given that if the merge isn't a suitable alternative to deletion, then deletion seems the way forward. Thanks for adding your views as the page creator. Klbrain (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Klbrain: Your deletion nomination brings 0 benefits to the community, Wikipedians seem to only care about known stuff while advocating for the contrary. The page is a direct translation of the German page that originates from the French page (created in 2009). V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mind uploading in fiction

Mind uploading in fiction (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)

The topic is likely notable (see SFE), but our execution is terrible. First, the prose part is pretty much unreferenced (the article is tagged with OR warning for 5 years now), then a gigantic list of random examples (mostly unreferenced too), failing WP:OR/WP:V/WP:IPC/MOS:TRIVIA/WP:NLIST/WP:NOTTVTROPES/etc. Mind uploading does not have a section about 'fiction/culture', just mentions this article in lead. Looking at article's history, this was split (exorcised...) from the main article in the old 00's, and of course it had no references or such ([5]). The article hasn't been improved since, quality wise, just accumulated more fancruft. WP:TNT is required. For now, this can be WP:ATD-Rredirected to the main article, with no prejudice for this being restored as an article - but it will need to be rewritten from scratch using reliable sources like the SFE article I've linked. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Vinga

Susana Vinga (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)

Associate prof, some early career awards, decent number of citations but perhaps not especially high. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF. Might be WP:TOOSOON or WP:MILL. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is mainly "local" (national prizes in Mathematics and from the University of Lisbon, as mentioned).
Main achievements in alignment-free sequence analysis and comparison (link to page), and internationally in 2% of highly-cited researchers (2021 and career) by "Stanford University has released its global list that represents the top 2% of Scientists in various disciplines, on 10-10-2022" - DOI: 10.17632/btchxktzyw.4) (not yet on the page). 193.136.100.230 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that citation. Thanks. -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some looking into this data. Vinga is listed in the main sub-category of "bioinformatics". Based on her full career publication and citation record, the Stanford data places her at rank 91 out of 7,142 in this broad subfield; I believe this is a figure that supports her notability ... but need additional measures. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think her citation record [6] is strong enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks - reviewing this ... -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    item G. in this Guideline states "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion is not based on the number of works the subject has authored. It is based on the number of times those works were cited. Six publications with triple-digit citation counts (one with almost quadruple digits) is a good record, one that indicates that her works are having a substantial impact on other researchers in the area. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an h-index of 29 alone (rather low in a highly cited field such as biology) does not denote "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline [...] as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." as the "independent reliable sources" part is missing. No major award either, so I do not see any WP:NACADEMIC criteria being fulfilled. Broc (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "independent reliable sources" are the 4282 academic publications that cite hers. That's what that phrase in that criterion means: many publications that cite the works of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, h = 29 is not impressive in her field. To check, I looked at the data for another Portuguese informatician that I know (I won't give his name). He is probably 15 to 20 years older (important, because everyone's h increases with age), but it's hard to tell, because her article doesn't say when she was born and we don't know how long ago the photo was taken. Anyway, my informatician has a Google h = 60, and his most cited publication has 3800 citations. Athel cb (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- per David Eppstein. The h-index argument is convincing. I'd like to see some kind of support for Broc's claim that h-indices run high in Biology. Central and Adams (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a well known fact, but here's an article [7] where it is stated "For Biology [...] very highly cited scientists have h ≈ 150". So in my opinion an academic with h-index of 29 in biology is not at all "highly cited", hence doesn't meet C1. Broc (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Broc, I don't even look at those things. If we cannot cite a specific instance of someone citing the work and proving its importance, what are we doing? Drmies (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Drmies I fully agree. Not one single reliable secondary sources describing the impact of the subject on her field of study has been brought up in this AfD. The only "keep" !votes entirely rely on the argument "she has many citations so she must be notable" and I wanted to show how this argument is faulty, as she is not a highly cited author in her field. Your argument still stand, and I agree with it: we do not want to host resumes of WP:MILL academics on Wikipedia. Broc (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reason we have NPROF#C1 is that there may not be one single reliable secondary sources describing the impact of the subject on [their] field. Academic work can be quite significant before authors of the secondary lit catch on and this notability criterion is meant to account for that. Central and Adams (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Central and Adams, I am not at all convinced that that is the reason we have it. I think we have it because it's a thing that counts in some parts of academia at some points--in tenure and promotion. I had a look through the talk page archives of PROF, and what is obvious to me is (I'm summarizing from a few comments by editors like DGG and Randykitty--I cannot claim to have done a comprehensive survey) that any index is a rough guide (and that's still in PROF, at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics), and that writing an article based on those metrics is, ahem, difficult. Plus, your argument is kind of contradictory. If a scholar is cited, then one should expect the citation to say something meaningful about the research or the scholar that was cited, unless, unless! we're just refbombing, like we do in certain disciplines (not mine). Having read quite a few sociology articles recently I'm even less infatuated with indices, and on top of that are the problems noted in various talk page discussions with Google Scholar. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • In the sciences authors are cited in research articles to acknowledge their original results, not to discuss the results or explain their meaning or impact. Those things are the province of expository writing rather than research. Scientists can have astonishing impacts on their field without being discussed in expository or other kinds of secondary writing. In the social sciences and humanities it's necessary to discuss these things in actual research because there's no epistemological consensus, but this doesn't happen in the sciences. No question that indicies are a rough guide, but I guess that's why we're having this discussion! Central and Adams (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think you have a slightly optimistic view of the academic publishing industry. And I'm sorry, but about differing epistemologies leading to different kinds of consensus, I think you are wrong. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see an h-index argument--I see a citation, not an argument. I do see a counter argument to that claim. What I see is a resume without any secondary sources; primary/company links and Wikipedia articles don't count. As a BLP, it's so poorly verified that it should be sent back to draft space, and I do not see how this passes PROF, let alone the GNG. This shouldn't have been moved into mainspace. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. (Coming here after Drmies' ping). I currently don't have the time to look into this in great detail, just marking a few points. The citation record, as observed by David Epstein is more than solid. On the other hand, that seems to be most of what we have for an article, as I find the awards less than impressive. Looks like an "up-and-coming" scientist, but associate profs are not very often found notable yet. If some independent sources would come up on which an article can be based, I'd !vote "keep". --Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Very, very strong h-index metric, which strongly indicates her importance to her field—WP:PROF#C1. Anwegmann (talk) 02:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    29 is not very, very strong. Athel cb (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete. Sorry, but the claims very strong h-index are not verifiable. I did the standard test of looking at the top people cited in the areas she lists in her Google Scholar page. The lowest cited area is "System bioinformatics" where she is competitive and 10th on the list. However, in her other areas she is not close to competitive. Her awards are all minor or junior (we really should say not to include them and the Stanford/Elsevier lists). Without significant acknowledgement of her by the wider community it is wP:TOOSOON. A strong start, but not enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm trying one more relist even though the pool of editors wanting to comment on articles on academics in AFD is limited. But I don't see a reconcilation or consensus here, either they meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#C1 or they don't.

Just as an aside, are articles for academics ever redirected to their institution in case they develop a more substantial profile in years to come? I haven't seen that proposed but thought I'd throw that out as an ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because if the article on the institution includes a list of its professors, it would only be a list of the bluelinked professors. So if we redirected, the article wouldn't mention the redirect target at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to get this lost AfD back in the system
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Deletion Review

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science&oldid=1217473503"