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

Life Noggin

AfDs for this article:

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

After seven and a half years since the previous AfD, I still agree that this YouTube channel fails WP:GNG. I am not sure whether the redirect Bobby43255 has created is appropriate, so deletion rather than redirection may be the appropriate outcome. GTrang (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Education, Science, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like a high school project. Geschichte (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This channel is not notable. It definitely fails WP:GNG. There isn't any coverage of this channel unless you include other YouTube videos and those aren't reliable sources. The article is also written terribly ("the channel has 1.9 million subscribers and a whopping 211 million views") and in a very promotional tone. Too many random YouTube channels and "personalities" make it into Wikipedia. Ashoburn (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles I found in Google mention the channel but the articles are mostly blogs. A website "Laughing Squid" comes up a lot and already is one of the two references used in the article. But "Laughing Squid" seems to cover basically every new video by this channel and the author is always the same "Lori Dorn", an author who pumps out hundreds of articles about new YouTube videos from various channels. That seems like SEO/engagement spam to me so that isn't a good website to use for references. There aren't any mainstream websites covering the channel except "hey new video!!" Nothing substantive to justify a Wikipedia article. Ashoburn (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little Atoms

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

Tagged for notability since 2022. The sources on the page seem to be passing mentions with little substantive coverage. I have found another longer ref 1 but am not sure that this is considered a RS. JMWt (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The_Skeptic_(British_magazine)#Podcast. I'm not seeing enough sources to satisfy WP:N. TipsyElephant (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Satyaprakash Saraswati

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

As far as I can tell, this is the same person whose article was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati. I can't find evidence that he is notable, but perhaps others have more success. Fram (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and India. Fram (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Hinduism, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's written like a paean, which would be fixable, but there don't seem to be any references that one could use to write a better page, or to justify why a page is deserved in the first place. A whole lot of pseudoscientific tosh has circulated over the years about "Vedic wisdom", and we'd need top-notch sources to avoid propagating that kind of fringe chatter. Department chair is an administrative position, not an academic honor, and by itself it does not satisfy the academic notability guideline. Also, this article was created on 29 July 2025, and yet the references claim to have been retrieved on 18 April 2014. I don't know what the deal is with that. (Text copy-and-pasted from somewhere else? Unreviewed slopbot output?) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the name itself is against WP:TITLESINTITLES. Poor references, no evidence of notability. Reads like an ad. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rutherford Discovery Fellowships

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

Article on a modest research grant, PRODded with reason "No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG." Article de-PRODded with reason "removed deletion tag as I disagree with this nomination: the RDFs were a well-known, primary means of science funding in New Zealand, and have now been replaced by a comparably notable programme which is linked in the article. will also add {{old prod}} to talk page. I edited the text of the page as well to highlight why the fellowship scheme is notable, and removed text that seemed redundant or simply parroting what appears on the RSNZ website." However, none of the sources given are independent of the subject. On the talk page it is suggested to merge this article with Tāwhia te Mana Research Fellowships, but that article suffers from the same sourcing deficit. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and New Zealand. Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources that pass independence requirement. —Rutebega (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Randykitty, your nomination is silent on WP:BEFORE. Could you please outline what you have done about it? Schwede 66 18:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One thing they did was delete a huge amount of information from the page. DrThneed (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I've restored that table. Schwede 66 00:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a procedural vote, opposing the deletion, as the nominator has not responded to my query whether they have followed WP:BEFORE. Schwede 66 18:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm baffled, this is the first time I see such a "procedural vote". I apologize for having a real life independent of WP (I know, isn't that shocking that such exists?), so I didn't answer immediately. As BEFORE I did a Google search and only found mentions that were not independent (either from the website of the granting agency/academy or a note on the website of the organism employing an awardee). I did not find any independent reliable sources that discussed these grants in depth. Perhaps you can now change your "procedural !vote" into a policy-based one. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - by NZ standards this is a very large research grant. Further sources can be added. Note, I have a COI, being a former recipient. Paul (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kia ora Paul, thanks for recognising COI. If you have sources, could you please post them on the talk page? Someone without a COI will work those in, I'm sure. Schwede 66 03:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also have a COI but agree and stated similarly in my initial disagreement with Randykitty regarding deletion. The fellowships are well known in NZ and are the primary means by which early-mid-career scientists get funding, outside of MBIE or Marsden grants.

A quick google news search turns up a few non-university sources citing RDFs:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/123205558/astronomy-academic-looking-to-unlock-the-mysteries-of-the-universe

https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2017/10/18/maori-academic-awarded-prestigious-scholarship/

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ourchangingworld/20111006 Kauri-kauri (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets GNG. Article has been expanded with many independent sources which a simple WP:BEFORE search would have caught. (Thanks, DrThneed) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial referencing by DrThneed.-Gadfium (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has now been the victim of serious refbombing. There are too many "sources" to verify them all, but a good sample shows that none of them is an independent reliable source about the award. A mention on the website or in the house magazine of university XYZ that John Doe got this award does not contribute to notability as required by WP:GNG. If ever this article gets kept, that humongous list of recipients needs to go (WP:NOTADIRECTORY, WP:UNDUE; such lists belong on their own website, WP is not a webhost). In all, I'm far from convinced that the changes made since my nom show notability. Perhaps one of the "keep" !voters above can list 3 independent sources that meet the requirements of GNG and I'll be happy to withdraw my nom. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply above with 3 sources, I found these quite quickly with a google news search. I have a COI so will leave it to others to edit but just noting that it's quite easy to find mentions of RDFs and RDF recipients in the NZ news (not just from university webpages) Kauri-kauri (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Randykitty I've found the following news articles from independent sources: Radio NZ - [1] / NZ Herald - [2] / Te Ao News - [3] / Otago Daily Times - [4]. Hopefully this is enough to satisfy your above request. Nil🥝^Talk 01:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (note: I have a COI as a recipient of this award). I certainly recognize @Randykitty's issue regarding independent sources, in particular because none of the independent sources now referenced and/or mentioned in this discussion are about the award, per se, rather than about recipients of the award. That being said, it would be pretty unusual for there to be news coverage, articles in scientific journals, etc, regarding the existence of a funding mechanism in its own right. It seems to me that the notability of this funding mechanism stems from the many scientists funded by it and the many research discoveries it has produced, though, both of which are evidenced by the sources provided. Come to think of it, another good edit to this article could be to provide some detail about some of the research discoveries it has produced, which would provide further evidence for its notability. An alternative could be to merge this article with Royal Society of New Zealand, in a similar fashion to how R01 grant redirects to National Institutes of Health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kauri-kauri (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Royal Society of New Zealand none of the sources provided are any actual significant coverage of the award itself, rather just on the research/recipients. There is already a suitable target article to discuss the subject. The current article is just a handful of sentences bar an unnecessary list. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A pretty clear keep I think given the number of sources and the impact it clearly had for NZ academics. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 01:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To me, this is still a pretty clear "delete". I agree 100% with what Traumnovelle said: "none of the sources provided are any actual significant coverage of the award itself, rather just on the research/recipients." To cite just the first source mentioned listed above ([5]): this is a 140 word note about somebody receiving this award, which is just mentioned in-passing and does not provide any support for notability. This is still a clear miss of WP:GNG. In the absence of any serious coverage, most of the above "keep" !votes are just different formulations of WP:ILIKEIT. As an WP:ATD, I could live with a "merge" as suggested by Kauri-kauri and Traumnovelle. --Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would just suggest that if Rutherford Discovery Fellowships is merged with Royal Society of New Zealand, then probably Tāwhia te Mana Research Fellowships should also be merged with Royal Society of New Zealand, by the same logic (i.e. notability of the research and the people's salaries the fellowships pay for is met, but notability of the schemes themselves are not). [still have a COI though!] Kauri-kauri (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Royal Society of New Zealand. There is no substantive coverage of the award - the sources above are acceptable for the biographies of the recipients, but not of the award itself. I could possibly see a list article of recipients, but I'm inclined to think the award does not confer notability, and the average recipient isn't independently notable - meaning a category is likely sufficient. The brief material we have on the history is merge-worthy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In my opinion, given the referencing provided, this article meets WP:GNG. -Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ambrosia10, I'm asking you the same thing as for other "keep" !votes above: which three sources are independent of the subject and provide in-depth coverage of this award? Barring that, your !vote is just WP:ITSNOTABLE. --Randykitty (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick D. Kim

AfDs for this article:

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

The lack of independent sourcing to establish notability is still an issue since the 2009 discussion. Sources are still not present to establish his notability.

Since that discussion, he has been mentioned in many books, but those are passing mentions crediting him for the pictures used in them. Roast (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Science, and New Zealand. Roast (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The single source referenced in the article is not an independent source as it is written by the subject. The claim of notability in the article is ‘best fan artwork’ from a fan convention, which is not a notable award that would be considered as "won significant critical attention" or any other part of WP:ARTIST. My search for other possible significant coverage in independent reliable sources turned up nothing. I found instead a self-published book and wikipedia copies. Asparagusstar (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His citation count is solid but falls short of WP:NPROF#C1 for me, and I don't see any indication that he passes any of the other NPROF criteria. I unfortunately couldn't find any independent coverage that would indicate that he is notable as a cartoonist. MCE89 (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the ascertained judgement of the notability of the subject as a cartoonist reached in the 2009 deletion attempt. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I am sure you know, notability standards have changed a lot since 2009. Do you have any sources to demonstrate his notability as a cartoonist? No usable sources at all were presented in the 2009 discussion. MCE89 (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while generally an h-index of 27 is not quite enough to pass the bar of NPROF by itself, combined with other activities it usually is based on discussions in the past. In this I would argue that the comic activity is substantial enough to confer notability. --hroest 17:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's possible, but I don't see any independent commentary on his cartoonist activities. Barely anything is cited, either. This specific subcategory of the Sir Julius Vogel Award does not seem to be enough to confer notability. -- Recon rabbit 23:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:ARTIST. The subject, a New Zealander, won the Sir Julius Vogel Award, which appears to be a prominent award in that country. The article could do with better sourcing, though.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, he won the Fan Award for best fan artwork. What is your evidence that this is a prominent award? The article for the Sir Julius Vogel Awards barely even establishes that the set of awards as a whole is notable, let alone that it is a well-known and significant award or honor. And even if the actual professional Sir Julius Vogel Awards are significant enough to establish notability, it seems like an enormous stretch to claim that winning the fan art award is enough on its own to make someone notable. MCE89 (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for example, according to the Sir Julius Vogel Award article, the "fan award winners" from "1997-2000" are "details unknown." It would be interesting to hear which of the four criteria of WP:ARTIST could possibly be met by winning a "fan award" that no one else can remember who won for four years at a time. Asparagusstar (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DesiMoore Even then, there's about nothing else establishing him. In a similar case to Taufik Rosman, the article would be better as a redirect to the award. Roast (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I'm not opposed to a redirect, if that's the case. DesiMoore (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Admittedly I'm not familiar with WP:NPROF, but it looks like he could meet #C7a, as he appears to be the go-to expert for NZ media on a number of issues, most notably meth contamination: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Nil🥝^Talk 07:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And some more: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Just for some context - in NZ "methamphetamine contamination" of housing (especially rentals) was a huge concern a ~decade ago, and numerous "testing" services were set up (which were in all likelihood no more than snake oil salesmen). Dr Kim was in the media a lot during that time, basically saying the fears were overblown. Along with the media stories, there's a journal article here, featuring Dr Kim - [19]

And some other articles I found not related to meth but other environmental contamination stories in the media - [20] [21] [22] [23] Nil🥝^Talk 01:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is an unsourced BLP and not a single secondary source that provides any real coverage of Kim as a person has been provided. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BEFORE does not provide any reliable sourcing for the claims made in the article. Science and Ink appears to be self published, as does Succeed in Science and Avoid Getting a Real Job. I don't see anything online to show notability. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even though sources provided by Nil NZ just above are not yet in the article they seem to provide further notability. The subject also won a Sir Julius Vogel Award. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the sources found by NilNZ above convince me that notability is proven. Unfortunately for this person, googling "nick cartoon" tends to get you Nickelodeon, sort of a search engine optimisation nightmare. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 05:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because there is literally only one source in the article (a primary citation to his just his dissertation), and the rest is completely unsourced and/or simply original research, we are left to find coverage elsewhere. I would have voted to keep given that he was the recipient of the Sir Julius Vogel Award (which, given that it had a page, I thought might be grounds for notability), but MCE89's comment above has convinced me that the award is somewhat dubious (its unclear if it actually should have a page at all) and may not qualify as a a well-known and significant award or honor. GuardianH 18:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added all of my above urls to a refideas list on the talk page. Also it turns out that there are two Wikidata IDs for Kim d:Q7026976 & d:Q98773898. I've been expanding identifiers on the first one (used by the article), but I imagine they'll need merging over there...

I linked up his profile from SCOPUS [24], but will leave it up to someone more familiar with NPROF to assess against C1. As mentioned above, there's numerous reliable sources calling him an expert in environmental contamination, so I would still argue he meets C7, even if the article in its current state does not reflect that. Nil🥝^Talk 02:55, 1 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)

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Deletion Review