Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

[edit]

Sanatan Wisdom Foundation

[edit]
Sanatan Wisdom Foundation (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)

Brand-new organisation lauded in over-the-top "articles" which seem to be typical paid-for advertisements published as genuine articles. "And at the centre of it all stands Sonic Philosophy: not just an idea, but a movement in the making." is how one article states it, while another concludes "In a world exhausted by noise, Svaryam offers resonance. In a culture addicted to stimulation, it introduces stillness. And in an age of fragmentation, it reclaims unity—through vibration, through consciousness, and through the timeless power of sacred sound." An article like this one would need WP:MEDRS, not this. Fram (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Science, Medicine, and India. Fram (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This organization meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The Sanatan Wisdom Foundation has received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent national Indian news outlets. These are not just small mentions but detailed reports about the foundation's work and impact.
    For example:
    • The Financial Express: This is a major national business newspaper. Their article, "Sanatan Wisdom: India's new model for the global mental health crisis," gives in-depth details about the foundation's scientific approach, its main projects (like NYRI, Svaryam, and Naad Yagya), and how it aligns with big goals like UN SDG-3 and the AYUSH mission. This shows serious, detailed coverage.
    • The Hans India, Daily Excelsior, Lokmat Times: These national papers have covered NYRI's scientific studies on Vedic sound, including its partnerships with top institutions like AIIMS and IIT. This highlights the foundation's notable research.
    • The Pioneer: This national newspaper reported on the "Global Sonic Experiment" linked to Naad Yagya, showing a notable event organized by the foundation.
    • Ahmedabad Mirror: Provides additional independent reporting on its founding and goals.
    While the foundation was established recently, the immediate and widespread national media attention it has received, detailing its unique approach to mental health, demonstrates its notability. It's not just an organization of a single person; it's a foundation with verifiable initiatives and scientific collaborations that have been reported on significantly by various independent news organizations.
    Thank you for your time and review.
    Svaryam (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the creator of this article has already stated (wrt to another article, declined repeatedly at AfC) that they have a COI with the founder of the company. Fram (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding COI disclosure: I acknowledge Fram's comment. I confirm that I have a professional relationship with the founder of Sanatan Wisdom Foundation. I understand Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy and have made every effort to ensure this article is written from a neutral point of view, relying exclusively on independent, reliable, and secondary sources. I am committed to following all Wikipedia guidelines and will continue to make revisions as needed to meet community standards. My intention is to contribute factual, verifiable information, and I apologize if my previous actions regarding other articles caused any confusion. Svaryam (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further response: Article has been thoroughly revised for neutrality and conciseness. I have implemented all suggestions to remove promotional language and ensure the tone is strictly factual. The article now exclusively focuses on verifiable facts, supported by reliable and independent national media coverage. I believe these revisions fully address the concerns regarding promotional tone and content. Svaryam (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Most of the sources were published around the time between April and June this year with a few being published at the end of May and all are very similar and promotional in tone ("groundbreaking", "pioneering", their mission and vision, etc.). None have a named author which suggests they are regurgitated press releases/ WP:NEWSORGINDIA. S0091 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to concerns about source independence, timing, and authorship (S0091): I appreciate the detailed scrutiny of the sources. I acknowledge that several articles were published within a concentrated period and some may employ descriptive language, reflecting a journalistic style that can be enthusiastic when covering new initiatives. However, these factors do not automatically negate the independence or reliability of the publications themselves.
    The sources cited (The Financial Express, The Hans India, The Pioneer, Daily Excelsior, Lokmat Times, Ahmedabad Mirror, News18 Hindi) are prominent and editorially independent news organizations in India. Their decision to publish articles, even without a named author, implies editorial vetting and a determination of newsworthiness by an established media outlet. These are not obscure or unverified blogs but mainstream news entities with a public reputation to uphold.
    While the absence of named authors on specific pieces can be a concern for in-depth analysis, it is a common practice in certain types of news reporting, particularly for organizational announcements or features on emerging entities, and does not inherently make the entire publication unreliable or indicate a "planted" advertisement. The key information (e.g., collaborations with AIIMS/IIT, the development of specific platforms like Svaryam, and documented events like the Naad Yagya in Ujjain) represents verifiable activities reported by multiple distinct outlets.
    The article on Wikipedia has been meticulously crafted to extract only factual, verifiable information from these sources, explicitly avoiding any "puff piece" language or promotional tone. The focus remains on what the organization does and what has been reported about it, rather than its stated mission or vision in a promotional sense. I urge reviewers to consider the overall reputation and editorial independence of the publishing news organizations in India when assessing these sources for notability.
    Svaryam (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a Tribune article published May 28th, which is not cited in the article but has the disclaimer "ADVERTORIAL DISCLAIMER: The above press release has been provided by PNN. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same" and all the others published around the same time pretty much say the same things. The AhmedabadMirror, which is cited, is marked as a "Special" which is code for press release as noted at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. S0091 (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to concerns about source independence, timing, and authorship (S0091): I appreciate the detailed scrutiny of the sources. Regarding the Tribune article mentioned, I want to clarify that **this specific article is not cited as a source in the Wikipedia page for Sanatan Wisdom Foundation.** My reliance is solely on the sources explicitly cited within the article. Concerning the Ahmedabad Mirror reference, I have re-examined the cited article from Ahmedabad Mirror to check for the "Special" marking. **Upon re-examination, I found that the article is indeed categorized under 'Others Specials', and its style, similar to syndicated news wire content (e.g., beginning with 'New Delhi [India], May 12:'), aligns with common formats for press releases.** Recognizing that such content may not fully meet Wikipedia's criteria for independent, secondary sources for notability, **I have promptly removed this specific Ahmedabad Mirror source from the Wikipedia article.** I acknowledge that several articles were published within a concentrated period and some may employ descriptive language. However, the remaining sources I have cited (e.g., Financial Express, The Hans India, The Pioneer, Daily Excelsior, Lokmat Times, News18 Hindi, and the recently noted Punjab Kesari article updated by Diksha Raghuwanshi) are prominent and editorially independent news organizations in India. Their decision to publish articles, even if not always by a named journalist (though some now explicitly show editorial attribution), implies editorial vetting and a determination of newsworthiness by an established media outlet. These are mainstream news entities with a public reputation to uphold. The key information (e.g., collaborations with AIIMS/IIT, the development of specific platforms like Svaryam, and documented events like the Naad Yagya in Ujjain) represents verifiable activities reported by multiple distinct outlets. The Wikipedia article itself has been meticulously crafted to extract only factual, verifiable information from these sources, explicitly avoiding any "puff piece" language or promotional tone. I reaffirm my commitment to adhering to Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and neutral point of view, and I urge reviewers to assess the overall independence and reputation of the publishing news organizations in India when evaluating the sources. Svaryam (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Svaryam please read WP:BLUDGEON. Repeating your arguments is not helpful, especially the WP:WALLSOFTEXT. Other editors will review and opine. S0091 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Acknowledgement: Understood. I will refrain from further comments and allow other editors to review and opine. Thank you for the clarification.
      Svaryam (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Dröscher

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Walter Dröscher (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 article fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. I will put aside the question for the time being as to whether Heim Theory really does pass WP:GNG/WP:NFRINGE and whether we need two articles (one on the "theory" and one on the eponymous author), but this article seems to be claiming a kind of inherited notability from those obscure points. I don't really see serious coverage of this person in independent sources. jps (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian physicist

[edit]
Indian physicist (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)

I feel like a list of Indian physicists might make sense, but not an article defining an "Indian physicist". This feels more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tajmar

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Martin Tajmar (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 article was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Woodward (physicist) and I came over here to find a WP:PROFRINGE and WP:NOTCV promotional article for an academic that I do not see passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. None of these sources is truly independent of the subject in the way we would want for a proper biography what with the WP:FRINGEBLP implications. The cringeworthy picture included makes me think there has probably been some WP:PROMO going on and while AfD is not cleanup, this seems to me to indicate that a WP:TNT is warranted and I doubt anything will arise from the ashes. jps (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails the extremely low bar of WP:NPROF. Most of their papers are barely cited, and when they are it's often in predatory journals or bottom tier ones. Not all the time, but often enough that citations are too low to matter. Awards are also minor. This is not a notable researcher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After evaluating the sources in the article and searching for other possibilities, I agree with jps and Headbomb. Nothing indicates that an article is warranted here. The awards are inconsequential fluff, and the citation record would be unremarkable even if all the citations came from worthwhile journals, which they don't. (Two of the sources currently in the article are conference proceedings. In physics, that's little better than writing a blog post about your work.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Tajmar’s TU Dresden profile [1] lists his key publications from 2003 to 2011. These have a median of about 25 citations on Google Scholar, which is modest for an academic. A JSTOR search only turns up a single passing mention, which doesn’t suggest much academic attention. His CV also shows no listed publications from 2012 to 2020, despite being updated in 2020. This falls short of notability under WP:PROF and WP:GNG. On top of that, the article also gives weight to a 2006 gravitomagnetic experiment that has never been independently replicated, raising WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE concerns. This is more than a cleanup issue. The subject does not meet the standard for a standalone article. HerBauhaus (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Total refraction

[edit]
Total refraction (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)

While seemingly reasonable at first glance, this just isn't a topic.

First, none of the sources given talk of total refraction, only total internal reflection. A 2002 source is mentionned, which I've tracked to be doi:10.1364/OL.27.000815, but 'total refraction' is only found in the abstract, and in the body it's 'total reflection', indicating a typo/mistake.

There are minor instance of 'total refraction' being found in literature, but it's simple impedance matching (optics) leading to no reflection at the interface, leading to what most people would call total transmission, but some call total refraction.

While a previous version of the article made more sense (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Total_refraction&oldid=54441257), this just isn't a topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Negative refraction. Current content of the total refraction article is completely worthless. ZhangThis review discusses the minor topic "total refraction" in the context of "negative refraction": Zhang, Y., & Mascarenhas, A. (2005). Total and negative refraction of electromagnetic waves. Modern Physics Letters B, 19(01n02), 21-33. The sources that use the term "total refraction" seem to be by these authors, but "negative refraction" is more widely used.
Johnjbarton (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Woodward (physicist)

[edit]
James Woodward (physicist) (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 WP:PROF, WP:GNG, and WP:NFRINGE considerations of this page makes me think that James Woodward is just likely not notable. None of the sources listed mention him seriously as a person and I question whether his fringe theory really is all that notable. Certainly his idea is not published reliably, but instead are in fringe journals, and there does not seem to be WP:FRIND sources available to the degree we would normally wish. When academics are supposed to be "notable" for the claims outside their field of expertise, it is an immediate WP:REDFLAG. I think this is not deserving of an article. jps (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Scoles, Sarah (August 2019). "The Good Kind of Crazy: The Quest for Exotic Propulsion". Scientific American: 58–65. JSTOR 27265292.
  2. ^ Oberhaus, Daniel (September 3, 2020). "Gravity, Gizmos, and a Grand Theory of Interstellar Travel". Wired.
  3. ^ Johnson, Stephan (September 7, 2020). "NASA-funded scientist says 'MEGA drive' could enable interstellar travel". Big Think.
  4. ^ Cruz, Sherri (May 21, 2013). "Woodward's Wormholes". Orange County Register.
  5. ^ Tajmar, Martin (2017). "Mach-Effect thruster model". Acta Astronautica. 141: 8–16. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.09.021.

Food contact chemical

[edit]
Food contact chemical (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)

Looks like a glorified WP:DICTDEF. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dilraj Singh Rawat

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dilraj Singh Rawat (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)

Fails WP:GNG, no in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources, also the article is little promotional, may be a fan creation. GrabUp - Talk 08:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Did a search myself and didn't find anything that would lend notability. Only thing I can imagine is that there are non-English sources available. nf utvol (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking more LLM creation, actually. Which I suppose is not entirely exclusive with fan creation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lindsey

[edit]
Jason Lindsey (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)

Fails WP:NBIO; some promotional content. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Master of Science in Rural Development

[edit]
International Master of Science in Rural Development (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 article appears to be promotional in nature, focusing exclusively on a specific master's program without providing evidence of any notability. Even basic online research shows no indications of academic recognition, such as rankings or third-party evaluations. Chiserc (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wathek Zair

[edit]
Wathek Zair (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)

Unnotable scientist who fails WP:G, WP:NPROF and/or WP:SIGCOV with a low h-factor and no awards. Page is full of WP:Peacock with dubious claims, self-published work and refences to vanity articles. Novice editor has repeatedly removed maintenance tags, ignored review suggestions and restored to main after draftification. I see no way to repair this article, time to delete it. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refrain from duplicating your identical content beneath all my votes and comments.CresiaBilli (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think; I'm not convinced that his own publications are sufficient for NPROF #C1, or that he's got sufficient independent sourcing to satisfy GNG. Google Scholar messes up and returns the publications of a wide range of other people, which isn't helping. I'm also very unconvinced that his company Parkers Pharma Limited (which claims to make rodenticides) is itself notable. At least its UK activities seem to be a very small micro-company with few employees, and a google search finds only its social media activities, not its products. Searching for the actual products advertised on our Parkers Pharma article or on the company's website (taken from our article) similarly finds unrelated topics. This just isn't normal for a company claiming to have customers in 35+ countries and a wide range of products. The text associated with the products is largely identical to that of PelGar products. I am smelling rats. Elemimele (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elemimele, a good point about his GS_profile. Since he created it, it is his responsibility to purge citations from it that are incorrect, some happen. However, this does look like a deliberately misleading profile. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom Laura240406 (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: article reads like a CV (WP:Peacock), sources in general do not support claims made (WP:V - a few publications on the same topic don't support a claim of "substantial contributions," particularly when it looks like all the papers were sourced from the single PhD thesis), and the pharma company appears to be a [minor family business] with 10 employees and no assets.
Crmccull000 (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Crmccull000 has total edit count 28 and registered account on 28 May, 2025. specially came here for adding his first Delete vote here. Seems like a puppet of an experienced user.CresiaBilli (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Copyedits to the article were suggested as a "new user task" and I saw the deletion discussion banner. Disregard my argument if you think it has no merit, but don't resort to ad hominem. Crmccull000 (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the correct explanation which is asked above from you. I smell you are a sock of nominator Ldm1954. Neo9812 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Neo9812, please do not make accusations like this without evidence. The explanation provided is completely appropriate, and indicates careful analysis. I request that you apologies to @Crmccull000. My skin is tough enough that I will ignore your comment. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing to add to Ldm1954's considered nomination. SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The delete votes here are not strong due to lack of resource analysis. As an inventor and scientist Mr. Zair is notable who meets Wikipedia's Notability Standards for a scientist. Neo9812 (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you insist. Let's analyze the references in the article one at a time and compare to WP:RS, WP:INDY, and WP:V guidelines.
    1. Sales pitch for Parker's Pharma product. Not independent, not reliable.
    2. Same as 1, different product. Not independent, not reliable.
    3. Appears to be a press release - no indication of interview with subject or critical coverage. Not independent, not reliable.
    4. Self-authored registry entry. Not independent, not reliable.
    5. Unable to substantiate, may be OK (supporting section may be in the Arabic portion).
    6. Brief, self-authored newsletter article (appears to be based on PhD work, see 7). Not independent for information regarding the author.
    7. PhD thesis (self-authored). Not independent for information regarding the author.
    8. Journal article (self-authored, based on PhD thesis, see p. 6 of thesis). Not independent for information regarding the author.
    9. Points back to the same thesis as 7 - not sure why it is listed twice. Not independent for information regarding the author.
    10. Storage stability test data and materials certification for one of Parker Pharma's products. Does not support the cited claim (appears to show Zair as an employee of a pest control manufacturer? See page 2). Irrelevant reference.
    11. Self-authored book, published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, a suspected predatory publisher. Figures at minimum are generated by AI - see for example pdf page 17 of the referenced sample. Not independent for information regarding the author, not reliable.
    With the possible exception of ref. 5, which I am unable to verify due to unfamiliarity with the language, none of the numbered references can be considered WP:SIGCOV. Crmccull000 (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ising critical exponents

[edit]
Ising critical exponents (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)

A weird article that contains a bunch of undefined Greek letters and some gobbledegook --Altenmann >talk 18:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia contains hundreds of thousands of highly specialized articles in exact sciences (physics, mathematics, biology). If a non-expert looks on an article they may find it's gibberish. The terminology of the article is standard, and it is supported by links to other existing articles. PhysicsAboveAll (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for highly-specialized experts. Highly-specialized experts usually read highly-specialized books and papers, rather than essays of high-school students in wp. Whereas an encyclopedia is for laymen who, with some perseverance, could have some edication. But here it is not the case. The article is 100% based on primary sources. The only book cited is a ref for "Critical exponent". Therefore it is impossible to verify whether it is up-do-date or even correct at any point in time. --Altenmann >talk 07:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The referencing is not great, but the book contains enough discussion about the Ising model for verification, and Pelissetto & Vicari (2002) is a review article (Section 3.2. is about the Ising critical exponents). In addition, while the research articles are primary sources for the new results, they are secondary for older results and the history of problem. 130.234.230.66 (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree @PhysicsAboveAll on this, and I strongly disagree with the proposed deletion of this article. Wikipedia is used both by laymen and experts, and as long as either (in the best case both) group benefits from the existence of an article, one should not remove it. I do agree that this article is lacking in numerous aspects, I have personally used it several times in the past and found it useful. 139.18.9.3 (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No valid reason for deletion (WP:DEL-REASON) has been given. Wikipedia strives to be accessible, but this does not mean that technical articles should be removed. Instead, they should be written one level down from the level the content is usually presented on (WP:ONEDOWN). In this case, this is a topic usually presented on an advanced course in statistical mechanics, so the text should ideally be written to be accessible to an undergraduate physics student. Notability is not a concern, as the critical exponents of the Ising model are a central topic in statistical mechanics, discussed for example in Kenneth Wilson's 1982 Nobel lecture. A more accessible introduction would be David Tong's lecture notes (Ch. 5) Leo Kadanoff's commentary in Journal Club for Condensed Matter Physics (cited in the article) is a useful secondary source here. 130.234.230.66 (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ising model. I do not see that the critical exponents are an independently notable topic that need a subarticle here. Reywas92Talk 14:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not an issue, as there's ample discussion about the exponents in the literature. Of course, they are always discussed in the context of the model, but note that the prose size of Ising model is 12086 words, not counting the parts formatted as lists. Probably there is a lot of fluff to be condensed, but at the moment this suggests that we should not add more stuff (see WP:SIZERULE), but instead split off subarticles. There may, however, be better ways to do the split than the current one. 130.234.230.66 (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are zero sources in the Ising model#Four dimensions and above, which like a lot of the article is dense explanations of formulas. Much of this could be trimmed since we are an encyclopedia not a textbook. The article uses "we" 32 times... Reywas92Talk 17:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it can be improved, but that should be done by someone knowledgeable, otherwise it might not improve WP. The Ising model in 4-epsilon and higher dimensions is discussed in standard textbooks, which indicates that we should also have a substantial discussion. In the Encyclopedia of Condensed Matter Physics (2024), the word "we" is used 4562 times over its 4473 pages. MOS:WE also makes an exception for "author's we" in scientific writing. 130.234.240.12 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The nominator's reasons for going to AfD seem to be inappropriate. As mentioned by others above, this is a well established topic, it seems that no good WP:BEFORE was done; a quick GS search give many links. Yes, it can (and should) be improved, I suggest a more gentle lead sentence to paragraph before the current content (I tagged it for a lead rewrite). Ldm1954 (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alright, respondents disagree with the nomination statement - but is the topic notable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think your question was already answered by several of us above, the topic is very notable, see the results of the GS search. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put my response another way. Any professional scientist in physics or materials science will have heard of Ising models and these exponents, and perhaps professionals in a few other areas, although they may not know the details (I dont). The rating in Talk:Ising critical exponents of "Mid-importance" is, IMHO, reasonable accurate. A topic which has such a large journal and book literature is notable, the specific GS search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14&q=%22ising+critical+exponents%22&btnG= has close to 700 entries. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a body of literature discussing "Ising critical exponents": articles + books. There's not much question of notability in that sense. Another term which refers to these exponents is Ising universality class (It might even be a better name for the article). One can find more sources with that term: articles + books. The fact that the ordinary liquid-gas phase transition belongs to the 3D Ising universality class makes this very relevant for ordinary matter, and that also distinguishes the topic from Ising model (Ising model being just one example system in Ising universality class). 130.234.110.113 (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Ising model. The topic is not independently notable. No need to create a separate article for this. 110.227.37.228 (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename to Ising universality class as suggested above. The nomination is misguided; there's nothing actually wrong with having an article that requires a technical background, since for the most part nearly everyone who would be looking it up will have that technical background. The Ising model is a workhorse of statistical physics, as any textbook on the topic will confirm. On my desk right now I have Kerson Huang's Statistical Mechanics (Wiley, 1987), which has two whole chapters devoted to it (one on the Ising model in general and another on the exact solution for the 2D square lattice). The critical exponents of the Ising model in different dimensions are an important feature of it. I would agree with the suggestion to merge this material into the main Ising model page, but that article is already rather long and not so well organized. Moreover, merely merging this text into that would leave the notation undefined, so we'd be writing even more and making the page longer yet again. I think that our coverage of the topic overall would benefit from judiciously trimming Ising model and migrating some of its text to other articles. One approach would be to rename this article to Ising universality class and bring most of Ising model#Applications over into it. But deleting this article would be the wrong first step. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetically enhanced Physical Vapor Deposition

[edit]
Electromagnetically enhanced Physical Vapor Deposition (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 that describes (advertises) a not notable product by a company, used for Physical vapor deposition. The technique is standard, with a decent general page already at Low-energy plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition, which is what the page was redirected to -- this company did not invent it and their technology is not special. An editor who is presumably not aware of the science/technology recreated the page. Going to AfD rather than an edit war. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Both the page (in its original and current version) as well as the companies web page fails to describe the method. The page has one reference to magnetron deposition in [5], which indicates that a standard plasma deposition method is used. There must be a plasma, as electromagnetic fields of course do not have any effect on neutral atoms. Both the original and current version are from a technical viewpoint at best a bit misleading. (Admittedly the reverting editor has probably never done thin film deposition work.) Ldm1954 (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacking in independent sources that describe the process. This just seems to be a trademarked name of what may or may not be low-energy plasma enhanced CVD. Difficult to verify anything given the process's proprietary nature. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThere are independent coverages which helps establish the technology’s notability and neutral evaluation. For example, an article in The Globe and Mail provides coverage from a widely respected national newspaper and discusses Canadian defense technology and its international impact. Similarly, a piece on Global Defence Technology via NRIDigital offers an industry perspective that includes technical comparisons with traditional chrome plating—this demonstrates that the discussion of EPVD is carried out by independent experts rather than serving as self‐promotion.
Additional third‑party analysis is available from and Security, which supports the claims made in the article by providing market context and independent observations. Moreover, coverage by Shephard Media further reinforces the technology’s relevance by detailing how innovations like EPVD can enhance the longevity and precision of weapons systems. Beyond media coverage, government validation also substantiates EPVD’s impact. For instance, a SERDP/ESTCP fact sheetsupports this by offering government-backed details of the technology’s performance and significance. In addition, a contract listing on [4] shows that public sector interest and evaluations have been directed toward EPVD, addressing concerns about promotional bias through independent evidence.
Lastly, EPVD is clearly differentiated from other deposition methods such as low‑energy plasma‑enhanced chemical vapor deposition. In the wake of the EU’s ban on chrome plating, an analysis by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)indicates that EPVD has become a viable alternative to chrome plating.
Pointing that, I believe this article is neutral, independently verified and not an advertisement—and should remain active on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyamin21 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments about the sources:
  1. Is the discussion at The Globe and Mail in-depth? How many words are there about EPVD?
  2. Global Defence Technology via NRIDigital is an interview of the CEO of Paradigm Shift Technologies, so much of it is not independent.
  3. "and Security" link does not work.
  4. Shephard Media is behind the paywall, but also seems like an interview of the CEO. How much information is there about the process?
  5. The fact sheet does contain a short description of the process
  6. contract listing is another 404
  7. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) link takes me to some login page with no information about the process
84.251.164.143 (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. yes, at least 5 times
2. It is an interview by an independent news agency, not a self-published article
3. https://defenceandsecurity.ca/media/article&id=1013&t=m
4. The fact it is behind a paywall of a world-renowned publication proves that it is not a self-promoting or self-published article. It describes the process in detail
5. Yes, the fact sheet is on the official website of the US government and it clearly states the objective, description and benefits of EPVD technology.
6. https://www.highergov.com/contract/N6833520C0013/
This contract was awarded and the US NAVY clearly sites that this technology is an alternative to chrome plating for gun barrels.
7. ECHA has validated EPVD as an environmentally friendly commercially available viable alternative to chrome plating- their website requires cookies.
The primary distinction between Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) and Enhanced Physical Vapor Deposition (EPVD) lies in their application capabilities. PVD is limited to coating external surfaces and operates as a line-of-sight process, meaning it cannot effectively coat the interior of complex geometries, such as tubes or barrels with significant diameter-to-length ratios. In contrast, EPVD was specifically developed to address this limitation, enabling the application of coatings on the interior surfaces of tubes and barrels, even those with challenging geometries. This makes EPVD suited for applications where internal surface coatings are required, which PVD alone cannot achieve. Benyamin21 (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For now, there do not seem to be enough sources to write an article about the EPVD process (We don't really know what separates it from other PVD processes). As a product, I don't see that it would fulfill the strict requirements of WP:NPRODUCT either ("sustained coverage in reliable independent secondary sources"). Would the company be notable? 84.251.164.143 (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Bocklandt

[edit]
Sven Bocklandt (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 article lacks sustained, notable coverage of the subject via third-party sources. The majority of sources on this page are research papers partially authored by Bocklandt. The TIME article does not mention Bocklandt at all. The subject's work on the "gay gene" is detailed in the Biology and sexual orientation article. Various aspects of their work could be detailed in their respective subjects, but Bocklandt himself doesn't appear to be notable. 30Four (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over 30 references (out of 46) were added to the article, where the subject did not partially author the source. Several links to interviews in magazines, newspapers, radio and TV were included, where the subject's work was the main topic of discussion, which implies notability. Eurenansantos (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:REFBOMB was not the way to go about this, considering 17 of the total references are only used to state that Bocklandt has appeared in media. The sources are not used to support any other claim on the page. The articles that speak to Bocklandt's research would be great applied to the Wikipedia articles about the subject rather than Bocklandt himself, especially considering he typically worked within a team of researchers. There are multiple 45+ minute long pieces of media with no timestamp, multiple primary sources linking to companies that Bocklandt is affiliated with, and some paywalled links that I do not have access to. There are also many blogs linked within here as well.
It still appears that a majority of the press here mentions Bocklandt in passing, where the focus is on the research itself. A Dutch editor may be able to speak to the availability of higher quality sources (unrelated to interviews) in that language, but from what I can see, the reliable sources in English on this page only mention Bocklandt in passing in relation to his work - particularly about the Sexual orientation studies - (The Boston Globe, The Guardian), or not at all (Time, The Conversation).
Also, if you intend to vote "keep" for this article, please format your comment appropriately. If this was meant purely as a comment to persuade others, disregard that sentence. 30Four (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm not enthusiastic about this researcher or his research, but that may be prejudice. He has well cited papers as first author in respectable journals, so I think we need to accept that he is a real scientist. Athel cb (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. In my view, he does not pass WP:NPROF looking at the cumulative body of his work and a lot of the reception within science stems from the controversies generated by the papers that he wrote. From an academic point of view, there is a lot of WP:BLP1E with a handful of papers that have garnered a large number of citations but not a wide body of impactful work as reflected by his h index of 13 which is not very impressive and lower than the "average professor" in the US, but the few papers that he did produce have a disproportionate impact on science as measured by citations, with his first author plos one paper gathering 1000+ citations. In the popular media, I could not find [[WP:THREE] in depth articles about him personally (most is WP:REFBOMB with just random quotes) so I dont think he passes WP:GNG. Also the article clearly overstates his contributions, citing papers where he is a second to last author as "his" work and the article was written by a WP:SPA that seems to have been created specifically for this and reads like WP:PROMO. Overall I think he is a borderline case but given that he neither clearly passes GNG nor NPROF and according to WP:BLP we should be hesitant to write an article. --hroest 14:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Science Proposed deletions

[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion

[edit]

Science Redirects for discussion

[edit]

Deletion Review

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science&oldid=1295042994"