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

Northolt Branch Observatories

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

Appears to be a hobbyist observatories or something that has a handful of telescopes. After checking with Wikiproject Astronomy, I got a response that its not notable. Having done a basic WP:BEFORE, I'm not seeing this group meeting WP:NORG. Graywalls (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Science, Astronomy, Europe, Germany, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from the article creator): I am not going to vote because of WP:COI, but I'd like to point out that the article has been quite outdated. Uncle G has started to expand it a bit with more recent coverage (thanks!), and I hope it can get enough coverage to pass notability standards. Uncle G, I'm not sure if Lintott's book mentions the episode of The Sky at Night that featured the "discovery" of BepiColombo? It's the May 2020 episode ("Locked down but looking up"). That may be a useful addition. Renerpho (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G:, can you name the WP:THREESOURCES that you suggest as the bases for WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG anchoring purpose? Graywalls (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SENS-01

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

Seems to lack notability, sources are database entries and press releases. Seems way too soon to have an article on this. Prod was removed because "AdisInsight articles are notably published in the literature when drugs are finally approved" but there is no guarantee at all that this drug will ever be approved of course, WP:CRYSTAL. Fram (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine. Fram (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fully agree with Fram. I'm unable to find any independent sources which discuss the drug in any depth. Many drugs get to the pre-clinical development stage and make it no further, and nobody ever thinks about them again; if this one is approved and subsequently people write articles about it, it will be notable then. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The drug's AdisInsight page is one of the main sources for the page. An AdisInsight drug profile isn't a simple database entry but is a full article and review on the drug. It's just paywalled so you can't see it. If or when a given drug is approved however, the AdisInsight page will be published as a literature review in the journal Drugs with the title: "[Drug name]: First approval", like so: [1] (example). Hence, the AdisInsight source meets WP:RS as being reliable, independent, and in-depth, and the criteria for WP:N are satisfied. On that basis, the page should be kept. There is also no policy or consensus that only approved drugs are notable. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 10:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current AdisInsight page and the finally published one (assuming it ever happens for this drug) are vastly different though, it's not as if "this" page will be published as "literature review". Fram (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that to provide an idea of what AdisInsight reports contain and some examples that could be viewed. Yes the final AdisInsight report on this drug would be different than the current one as information on it would grow over time. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 11:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have also added more sources and some expansion to the page. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 11:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too early for this drug candidate that has not yet reached clinical trials. There is no independent coverage of the drug, and its chemical structure remains undisclosed. AdisInsight can only summarize publicly available information, which, to date, is limited to press releases, the company's website, and security filings. The drug has not been mentioned in any peer-reviewed journal articles. Historically, only about 10% of preclinical drug candidates advance to clinical trials, and of those, only about 15% gain approval for human use.^[1]^[2] Boghog (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kimmitt R, Vieira M (July 2020). Moon S, Bezruki A (eds.). "Time and Success Rate of Pharmaceutical R&D". Knowledge Portal on innovation and access to medicines.
^ "Pipeline Attrition Rate and Risk Mitigation". Umbrex.

Quipu (cosmic structure)

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

Standard example of WP:TOOSOON. Proposed cosmology structure based upon a single article which was accepted for publication in January 2025 (a week or two ago), plus a writeup in a popular science magazine (Smithsonian Magazine) a few days ago. No secondary sources, work is far too new to have been analyzed by the wider community. Article was draftified, pointing out that Wikipedia is not for recent proposals or neologisms, only for established science with secondary sources etc. Editor ignored draftification and moved back to main without any attempt to explain or generate a consensus. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator. Pages such as this belong on Facebook or similar until there is a body of secondary sources, not Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Yep, that's prime WP:TOOSOON territory. Wait for some secondary literature to pick up the term, then try to write an article about it. Sheesh, the sole source hasn't even been formally published yet. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. An alternative would be a redirect to List of largest cosmic structures, where it is linked. Praemonitus (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please note that the original editor reverted a Draftification, so I am not sure if that will be useful. A redirect looks like a good alternative. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD frequently functions as the "draftification enforcement board" - if that is the consensus and it is not heeded, then there is the base for an admin to act accordingly. - Redirect would be okay IMO. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Hudson

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

WP:BLP of a "scientist, inventor, serial entrepreneur, and musician", not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for any of those things. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as the self-published websites of companies and organizations that he's been directly affiliated with, and his musical career being "referenced" entirely to Bandcamp and YouTube, rather than GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about any of it.
The only proper media footnotes present at all are a Toronto Star article that briefly namechecks him as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else, and one article in The Hill that tangentially verifies a stray fact about a piece of legislation without ever mentioning Darryl Hudson's name at all in conjunction with it, neither of which are support for notability either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced a hell of a lot better than this. Also, just for the record, the only two inbound links to this page from any other Wikipedia article are both expecting a basketball player from New Zealand, not a magic mushroom entrepreneur. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Science, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article definitely has problems (I kinda think the music section could almost be cut down to a sentence or two about how he enjoys music and self-publishes in his personal life?) but I did review some non-primary sources related to his career: He has two quotes and a decent blurb in the aforementioned Star article[1] and another blurb in a Toronto Sun article[2]. There's also coverage of him in cannabis or psychedelic specific(I think?) news websites [3][4]. I found an archived version of the Senate testimony source[6], which includes a paragraph about him. All of these seem independent, with mixed levels of sigcov and also mixed levels of reliability.

Taken altogether I think the sources still fall short of GNG and subject does not meet WP:BASIC, but I could be persuaded otherwise if other sigcov is found. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my initial reaction can't be repeated in polite company, but let's just say that he lacks significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having provided expert testimony due to his scientific knowledge and position in the groovy grove industry, he might come kind of close to requirements per WP:NBASIC. However, he does not have enough significant coverage per the additional requirements for scientists (widely published/cited) or business people (leadership of large firms). His music hobby is nowhere close to notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the initial author of this article is currently blocked. Additionally, there is notable reasons to consider currently lack of GNG. If rewritten and resubmitted suggest inclusion of additional high quality references. --Trex32 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Kloor

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

Reads a lot like a resume, tangentially mentioned in a few RS. Article may have been made for payment. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, Science, Indiana, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Making an accusation that the creator of the article, MichaelQSchmidt, a Wikipedia Administrator with over 61,000 non-automated edits, is an undisclosed paid editor is a pretty bold statement. Aside from that, the subject of the article meets WP:CREATIVE #3 for his role as producer, co-director, and writer of Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey and possibly for Earth: Final Conflict but I haven't been able to independently verify his involvement in that series (but I haven't tried very hard). RecycledPixels (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The tone is promotional, but if one is going to claim paid advertising, then one needs to prove it. The issue is whether the tone can be fixed by ordinary editing. That's all. Bearian (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator- the article has had the banner claiming it was made for payment since 2022. I had assumed that there was some official process that determines that; I am a new editor. I don't claim to have evidence that the article was paid for: I mean no harm to MichaelQSchmidt. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ptenothrix species 4

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

Never scientifically named, and thus fails WP:NSPECIES. One of several preliminary recognised species mentioned in a paper. These can be covered in the genus article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and Organisms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ptenothrix. Coverage on these recognisable but undescribed springtails is unfortunately quite minimal - I haven't been able to find anything on sp. 4 besides its mention on collembola.org, which is obviously not enough to build an article on nor to meet any notability standards. Hemiauchenia, you say sp. 4 was recognised in a paper, can you give me the citation/link the paper? I haven't been able to find anything more than the briefest possible mention (eg. presence of the name on iNaturalist/BugGuide) anywhere besides collembola.org, but either way, I strongly doubt there's anywhere near enough to meet WP:GNG. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was mistaken. I must have erroneously assumed that the species was described in a scientific paper when it was only described on collembola.org. My apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bosavi woolly rat

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

Never scientifically described, and thus fails WP:NSPECIES. Nothing more than passing coverage in a handful of scientific papers. Perhaps worth a brief mention on the genus article, but no more than that. I don't think it's a good idea to have articles about species based solely on preliminary news reporting, and the coverage isn't WP:SUSTAINED either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and Organisms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't? It seems to have made it into a few books in the years since. Uncle G (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hausheer, Justine E. (2024-03-19). "Meet the Amazing Giant Rats of Oceania". The Nature Conservancy.

Fair enough, I stand somewhat corrected. I meant the current article which is still only sourced to the 2009 news coverage. Even still, I don't think we should have articles for undescribed species when they can be covered in the genus article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC

Actually I was confused. I thought this was in the journal Nature, but it's actually the website of The Nature Conservancy a nature conservation charity. I don't think this is significant coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG from the BBC, CNN and Smithsonian articles, and while it has no official name from taxonomists yet, I suspect that is simply because it was discovered so recently. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 21:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2009 is not so recently. Plenty of mammals have been discovered, named, published, and catalogued since then. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NSPECIES, without a described name, this is just a pipedream. I could see draftify as an WP:ATD and WP:TOOSOON. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While this is certainly worth mentioning at the genus article, I see no purpose in giving it a dedicated article until it has a name and/or a listing in a taxonomically reliable source such as the IUCN or ASM (although the latter would tend to imply the former). Until then, we don't even really have any good evidence that there's anything to report, rather than that somebody once thought that there might be. If that changes, we can revisit it then... until then, the genus article is the best place for this and any other unnamed species. Anaxial (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep on the basis that, while this fails WP:NSPECIES, we've got coverage from the Smithsonian[2], the Guardian[3], the Nature Conservancy[4], the BBC[5], CBC[6], etc, along with several mentions in scientific publications... You can argue that it's WP:TOOSOON, but with this level of coverage I have to disagree, and I don't see much use in deleting this article when all we are waiting on is a published description and an ICZN compliant name. This is the absolute best case scenario for an article on an undescribed species: reliably documented (clear photo and video evidence from a reputable source to support its existence) with good news coverage and a likely genus placement. NSPECIES should not be interpreted as putting a kibosh on all articles on species not yet described (that was clearly not the intention behind the guideline), but rather, as a reflection of the community practice of giving all described species the presumption of notability. At the absolute least, the information in this article should be preserved in the Mallomys article (though in my opinion this is not to the benefit of the Mallomys article, especially given that the placement in Mallomys is not yet confirmed). I just can't say I see any benefit to the encyclopedia in deleting this. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if the generic placement was uncontroversial I'd agree with merging it to Mallomys, but with it unconfirmed I'm a very weak keep. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically all of the coverage is from the same few days in September 2009 though, over 15 years ago now. There's no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage (charity websites don't count), required for having Wikipedia articles on a topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense that an animal that has only been seen once due to its prescence in a remote area will attract the vast majority of its detailed coverage in relation to that initial discovery, but there are later mentions of this animal. Hopefully these links work, I absolutely loathe trying to link pages on Google Books/the Internet Archive but it's the best I can do... Most recently, a 2025 memoir by Gordon Buchanan, one of the members of the documentary crew, discusses it[7], and it's also mentioned several times in one of Steve Backshall's books from 2011[8]. It's also discussed in this 2013 book on extinction published by the Natural History Museum[9], this 2019 book on the Smithsonian published by the University of Georgia[10], and extremely briefly in a 2022 book on live mammal trapping[11] and a 2011 book on zoo management published by Wiley[12]. This is just what I could find through my limited online research tools, I imagine there are things I've missed. In 2021 it appears someone even published a children's picture book based on it[13]! Not terribly relevant to notability, but an interesting thing I found during my research and wanted to share, I thought it was very cute :P

My point being that this is an animal that has recieved a decent amount of coverage even in the absence of further sightings. I imagine the difficult terrrain and remoteness of its habitat are major barriers that have prevented it being rediscovered and described. Again, I think this is the best case scenario for an organism known only from a single sighting, and I think dismissing it on the basis that it has yet to be described goes against the spirit of NSPECIES and does not benefit Wikipedia readers. This is encyclopedically valuable information on a species that will be automatically presumed notable the moment a description is published, and I would hate to see it removed entirely.

For what it's worth, I would be more than happy to expand the article based on the sources I've found (Backshall's book in particular provides a lot of detail on the expedition). An alternative proposal would be to redirect Bosavi woolly rat to an article on the expedition/documentary that documented this animal and broaden the scope to include not just this particular rat, but also the other undescribed species they documented and the "story" of how the expedition was conducted. I find this slightly preferable to redirecting and including information on this purported species at Mallomys, both on the basis that this placement is not confirmed and that I feel having an entire section on a single undescribed species in a genus article looks ugly and reads poorly. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 00:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect as you describe would probably be the best course of action, if such a destination existed. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there's consensus for it, and we can decide on an article title/focus (should it be named after/focused on the documentary, the expedition, or both?), I would be happy to move the page and expand it out. Just to be clear, my vote remains keep rather than merge, but if there is no consensus to keep I would prefer a merge as described in my previous comment over deletion/merge to Mallomys. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With no existing destination, "merge" gets thrown out. I think it's the best option, though. "Draftify as ATD" is the best action that would lead to the effect of merging to something non-existent, as that can be resolved in the draft. I understand your desire to keep, but if this were a draft, you'd have time and space to make it something better we can all agree to. (Well, more of us...) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging this into an article on the expedition would be better than having an article on a topic about which little meaningful can be written. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:GNG, which is explicitly mentioned as an exception in WP:NSPECIES, and which the article clearly meets having received significant coverage. Zackery the Fence (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ethmostigmus. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Mallomys. Wikigrund (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it meets WP:GNG quite clearly.cyclopia ^speak! 15:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG, NSPECIES, and SUSTAINED. SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect (ATD) to either List of rodents discovered in the 2000s where it is listed, Lost Land of the Volcano#Discoveries, where it and the possible subspecies "Bosavi silky cuscus" are listed, or Mallomys. It would seem the "possible" species (2009 article) would have had a listing by now. The article DOES NOT PASS WP:GNG or NSPECIES The "established rules of scientific nomenclature" indicates that Kristofer Helgen, a biologist and curator of the Smithsonian Institution, or Muse Opiang a biologist with the Papua New Guinea Institute of Biological Research, apparently the co-discoverers, can (possibly did) tentatively name a new species. Apparently there has yet to be genetic analysis nor has the species been formally described (so undescribed), named, or name accepted, by a published scientific paper, so not officially recognized. It is an "undescribed putative species". All the current information is speculation, even supposition, so why create an article? After the initial discovery what has happened? 15+ years and still too soon. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have an entire category dedicated to undescribed species; being undescribed does not mean being not notable. WP:NSPECIES says that described species are notable, but it does not say that undescribed species are not. Undescribed species fall under GNG, and given sourcing provided above by Ethmostigmus in the discussion this species seems notable. cyclopia ^speak! 21:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Baer

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

Page on someone who is described as a Swiss banker and scientist, although I cannot verify the "banker" part. Except for a short obituary by Erwin Schrödinger I don't see any significant coverage, and even that orbituary is not effusive. Article is very short of inline sources (almost none), and seems to have avoided being flagger for this in NPP. If someone can dig up more information I would be glad to change my opinion, but currently it does not pass WP:NPROF or WP:N. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Switzerland. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article contains a short biography: Singh, Rajinder (2003). "Richard Bär and His Contacts with the Indian Nobel Laureate Sir C.V. Raman" (PDF). Indian Journal of History of Science. 38 (4): 377–387. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a Titularprofessor at Zuerich he meets criterion C5 of WP:NACADEMIC (the policy reason for keeping him); and although we have little information about him, getting an obituary in Nature written by Schroedinger is a pretty solid indication of academic notability in itself. The less policy-related reason to keep him is that our readers have a right to know about the figures who shaped physics during this important period, when information is scant. He's a medium-sized actor in a large-sized drama, and I think our account of the drama would be weaker without him. If we were to delete, I'd want a redirect rather than total deletion, and I can't think where to redirect to. Elemimele (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough sources to write an article. There is the article by Singh (above), necrolog at [14] (pp. 60-62). The pages 84-89 in the book by Bieri, Holenstein, and Völk (1990) also presumably discuss him, although I can't confirm it. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are also two mentions from Einstein papers: [15][16] Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bär's role in Erwin Schrödinger's flight from Nazi-occupied Austria is mentioned in Moore (1989) Schrödinger, life and thought, pp.341-2. Jagdish Mehra discusses Bär's work in Zurich in Erwin Schrödinger and the rise of wave mechanics (1987), p.284. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it hard to believe that someone who is the subject of an obituary in Nature (written by a scientist who is a household name) is not notable. The above sources are helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logarithmic timeline

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

An attempt was made to bundle this into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detailed logarithmic timeline, but the bundling was not done properly. I don't think enough analysis was put into determining if the topic meets WP:GNG — the main reason Detailed logarithmic timeline was deleted was WP:IINFO. Google Scholar returns lots of results about time perception, such as Ren et al. (2020); as well as a few odd items like Deane and Stokes (2002) on the physics of breaking waves; but nothing about a logarithmic timeline for history or the far future. The lone source is to one about an individual timeline that is linear; it mentions and links to a timeline on the history of life in passing, but not that it is logarithmic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments in the similar discussion linked in the nomination statement. Interstellarity (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is where not just mechanically looking for the article title and having an idea of what to look for pays off. The concept of a logarithmic timescale was documented by, amongst others, Nigel Calder in 1983: A logarithmic time line
[…] is no more mysterious than the maneuver of an aircraft as it nears touchdown and flares out to avoid hitting the ground too hard. The rate of "descent" through time diminishes as one approaches the present, according to a strict but simple rule that a stipulated proportional change in ancient dates always corresponds to the same distance along the timescale.
— Nigel Calder, ISBN 9780701139254 p. 75
Alas, Börje Ekstig' 2011 book ISBN 9781456779542 is self-published through AuthorHouse, because on pages 12–13 it not only explains what a logarithmic timescale is, it gives much the same reverse logarithmic calendar as in the reverse timeline section of this article, their both going back to the origin of life at $10^9$ Ma BP, for example.
But Joel Levy's Big Book of Science (ISBN 9780785835998, Quarto) is not self-published and explains on page 94 that when it comes to the difficulties of comprehensibly visualizing the history of the Earth, "[o]ne way around this is to use a logarithmic timescale".
Where rôte mechanistic keyword searching fails to pay off is that it doesn't find David Christian's Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History, a book that nowhere says the word "logarithm" but that is logarithmic (albeit not base 10) in overall structure, the scale of the book increasing as it works chapter by chapter towards the present, going from Ga at the start through Ma by chapter 5 to decades by chapter 11, and at least useful for being able to source explanatory notes on events in the table, satisfying any "But what do historians include?" questions. For another actually explicit logarithmic timeline of the history of the Earth, albeit a less detailed one (but in colour ☺), see Foley (ORCID 0000-0001-7510-0223) et al., chapter 16 of ISBN 9783030822026 (also published as doi:10.1016/j.ancene.2013.11.002), page 206. There's a logarithmic timeline of the past 10Ma on page 217 of ISBN 9780241280904 by Simon Lewis, for yet another "logarithmic timescale, where each jump is an order of magnitude" going down from 1Ma to 1Da from left to right.
This most definitely is not some novelty that was invented by Wikipedia. And to those, not historians/geologists/whatever, who opine that it is not useful, I give the words of the late geomorphology professor Antony R. Orme about xyr reverse logarithmic timeline of the Earth going from 1Ma up to 4.5Ga in doi:10.1093/oso/9780195313413.003.0008: "The logarithmic timescale condenses the distant past, thereby enhancing Mesozoic and Cenozoic events relevant to the present landscape."
Uncle G (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Expressing time in the logarithmic scale is a legitimate approach for analyzing many different phenomena - see Google Scholar search [17]. The page can be improved of course. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per My very best wishes. Svartner (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment about this page at the bundled AfD: The concept of a timeline is encyclopedic, but the idea of making the axis logarithmic is just a convenient display convention, not a separate concept that needs a page unto itself. The bulk of the page is unsourced and would be, at best, synthesis. XOR'easter (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Beckmann

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

Full professor with a Scopus | h-factor of 33. He has an honorary degree from Novosibrisk which might contribute to WP:NPROF#C3 (although it is unsourced) I am not certain. Citations look a bit weak for C1. I tagged it for unclear notability more than a month ago, nothing has changed. I feel it is time for more opinions about notability as I am on the fence with this one. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Germany, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think, we should keep the article. I will try to find a source for the honorary degree from Novosibirsk - he told me in person, that he got one, but I don't have a source.

Also he is the first person, who found a stable nitrene and published an article about that, which is a huge deal in this field. ScienceBecky (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is lacking in references in a few places, but the discovery of a stable nitrene is discussed in multiple sources that give Beckmann more than a passing mention as part of the work. It's tough but I lean towards passing WP:GNG if considering the Chemistry World and C&EN articles on top of the Novosibirsk doctorate (if true). Recon rabbit 14:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have advertised this AfD at Wikiproject Chemistry in the hope of getting an expert opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Honorary degrees can potentially count toward C1, they aren't guaranteed to be contributory, especially when they're not from world-renowned institutions. They definitely don't count toward GNG. The write-ups about his nitrene work are fairly standard, though they're not insignificant. I don't see a GNG pass here, but I might check his Scopus metrics to see if they line up with notability in this field. JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am probably the only other chemist here commenting on this professor of chemistry. His record is notable: "270 peer-reviewed publications, 9 book chapters and 16 patent applications."? The article is peacocky, but we can address that issue.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smokefoot, I think we have to be careful here. Based upon his Scopus profile his highest cited paper here has 108 citations, plus his citations have taken a slight downturn since 2020. The journals look decent (CCR, JACS, Angewandte). However, at least in solid-state physics or materials science these numbers are not impressive. They are also low compared to chemists I have collaborated with. If his honorary degree is major, as I said in my nomination, I am OK with him squeezing past the notability bar, but it remains unconfirmed. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: A bit on the fence right now, leaning towards keep for now per Reconrabbit.

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

[1] Kimmitt R, Vieira M (July 2020). Moon S, Bezruki A (eds.). "Time and Success Rate of Pharmaceutical R&D". Knowledge Portal on innovation and access to medicines.

[2] "Pipeline Attrition Rate and Risk Mitigation". Umbrex.

[1]

[2]