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

Helen Glaves

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

An orphan article. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. A number of provided sources are primary. Google news hits = 4 including 2 by her employer British Geological Survey. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Nomination lacks due diligence. The citation for the Ian McHarg Medal convincingly establishes her notability. I fail to see how Google news hits is an argument. Certainly this detailed piece from 2021 is not in hot new news. --Altenmann >talk 05:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google news is an indicator of coverage in media. The 2 sources you list are primary sources. The award is from European Geosciences Union where she was president and the British Geological Survey is her employer. We need independent sourcing. LibStar (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is your opinion. Disagreed. Sources from highly respectable organizations are good. --Altenmann >talk 06:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
from WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." LibStar (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I agree with Altenmann. She fulfils WP:NPROF criteria 6 by having been the president of European Geosciences Union from 2021-2023, although I would have liked to see a source for this other than her employer. She doesn't have a lot of citations for her research. She also won a medal (count towards criteria 2 - and while the source for this is the organisation that awarded the medal this is an example of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD) and edited a journal, which counts towards criteria 8. Her notable contribution to research seems to be data sharing in marine sciences, as stated in the [medal info|https://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/ian-mcharg/2016/helen-glaves/]: "she has contributed to significant advances in the stewardship of and access to marine research data". Lijil (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The problem is that if I compare her to other academics, her achievements so far are weak. With an GS h-factor of 7 she is far short of WP:NPROF#C1, particularly since almost all the papers are big team efforts where she is one of many. The Ian McHarg Medal is a divisional medal, so not the highest (although not a trivial one). The only thing which passes notability is being President of the European Geosciences Union. Their membership numbers are large, and they publish a lot of journals. While I am not a fan of notability for academic administrators who do not have major research chops, I have to call this a pass of WP:NOROF#C6. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puneet Sharma

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

I can't see any sign of notability. Terribly written, simply a promotional article about a non notable person Zuck28 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, Technology, India, Delhi, and California. Zuck28 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3, totally erroneous nomination that does not even consider the obvious notability criterion, WP:PROF. IEEE Fellow is a pass of WP:PROF#C3; in fact this specific fellowship is used in the guideline as the prototypical example of a fellowship that passes this criterion. The description of the content of his dissertation is unsourced and should be trimmed, and the New Scientist piece should be used to describe what he has done rather than to promote him as someone who has appeared in New Scientist, but WP:DINC and these are not delete-worthy problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per David_Eppstein and as not promotional by the subject. It appears to me that a different person with the same name attempted to hijack this article by editing twice to include films by them. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:PROF#C3 as David Eppstein said, has a significant impact on his field with 47 publications and cited by ~16,700 according to his Google scholar, is a distinguished member of ACM ([1]), etc. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Vinod Sharma

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for a standalone article under Wp:GNG, Wp:BIO or Wp:ACADEMIC.

While Sharma is associated with a Guinness World Record for the largest memory lesson (2018), there is insufficient significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. Zuck28 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Science, Medicine, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete none of these sources are WP:SIGCOV that I can see, they are short blurbs (even those that I could translate from Hindi). A world record by itself does not confer notability especially as these can be essentially purchased. Clearly doesnt pass WP:NPROF. --hroest 18:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear! @Hannes Röst, No, Guinness World Records titles cannot be purchased. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 19:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they can, pretty much. They're a marketing gimmick from a novelty publisher. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How ? Any reference or Discussion available ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 09:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criticism is that you can make up some really niche record like "most 10W light bulbs lit at the same time" and pay for the items to be delivered and get the people from Guinness in to confirm the record and bam you have yourself a record. AFAIK the Guinness people dont care what the record is as long as it can be verifiable and can be broken by someone else and you pay a fee (see for example this recent record for most glass bottles trapped with a Slinky in 1 minute). --hroest 13:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's own article about the Guinness Book explains, in polite terms, how it's a racket. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets notability guidelines under WP:GNG and WP:BIO according to sources. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 19:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the evaluations by the nominator and by hroest. This is an advertisement and should be removed as such. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanatan Wisdom Foundation

(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]
Delete - we are neither a soapbox, nor a free web host. Pages like this are fodder for the wealthiest man in the World, newly made up with his BFF, to take away our charity status. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Dröscher

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Spaceflight, and Germany. jps (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (inherited notability), seems to be notable only for developing Heim theory, but the theory's article in turn credits most of its proposal to Burkhard Heim and does not mention Droscher at all. GoldRomean (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited and GS cites are too small to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Notability not established. The only tangible achievement cited is being co-author of a paper that won a minor award given by a sub-committee which the other co-author headed. - Donald Albury 13:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, does not todaly clear WP:GNG. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of being, by all indications, a marginal figure even for a marginal topic. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- 2006 AfD got it mostly wrong -- even within the (fringe) area of work isn't sufficiently cited as an authority. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF and seems somewhat covered by WP:FRINGE. Clearly no reception in the academic world that is evident, a single paper award is not enough for NPROF#2. Whatever can be salvaged can be written in Heim Theory. --hroest 14:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even setting aside the WP:FRINGE issue, which requires in-depth coverage by mainstream sources to provide properly neutral coverage of his work, his citations are not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and a best-paper award (much of the basis for the 2006 keep) is not enough for #C2 (nor enough to show lasting influence for #C1). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NPROF. Coverage of Dröscher is minimal and largely tied to Heim Theory, which lacks mainstream recognition and falls under WP:FRINGE. HerBauhaus (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian physicist

(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]

Delete We don't even have articles like Physics in (country); I can't see any justification for a "definition" of a physicist who "is connected to Indian origin" – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @ClaudineChionh, With a good faith, may I know why you can't see any justification for a "definition" of a physicist who "is connected to Indian origin"- Sntshkumar750 (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sntshkumar750: § Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Someone who is interested in Indian physicists can browse Category:Indian physicists and maybe add the category to anyone who is missing. Someone who is interested in the history of physics in India can read (and maybe improve) History of science and technology on the Indian subcontinent. Why would we have an article on any combination of country + profession, unless a specific combination is particularly notable? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear@ClaudineChionh, may I know why do you feel that Indian physicists are not notable. When Boson is coined on the name of Satyendra Nath Bose, a light scattering known as Raman effect is name named after Indian physicist C V Raman, etc. Sntshkumar750 (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sntshkumar750: Of course those individual scientists are notable, that's why there are articles about them here. You haven't given any reason for this very broad and vague Indian physicist description to exist as its own article. That is what is being debated here. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @ClaudineChionh, when those individual Indian physicists are notable, then why not an encyclopedia should be created to give the full description of the Indian physicists in a single page, so that the readers will read about Indian physicists, its histories and contributions in a single article. Sntshkumar750 (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sntshkumar750: I feel that we are talking at cross purposes and I welcome feedback from other editors. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and India. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have List of Indian scientists, which includes physicists along with other scientists. Dirac66 (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree fully with the nominator, but I think repurposing this into a list of Indian physicists with a bit of prose at the start on the history of physics in India would be an easy alternative to deletion. We have articles like List of German physicists, List of Russian physicists and List of Jewish American physicists, and I'm sure there are enough sources about Indian physicists as a group or set to satisfy WP:NLIST. So if the article creator wants to add a new section with a bulleted list of the entries in Category:Indian physicists and move this page to the new title following this AfD, I'm fine with a keep. Otherwise delete per nom. MCE89 (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of Indian Physicists, maybe OK, but this isn't it. Athel cb (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original page creator has just created List of Indian physicists. This could redirect to that page but it doesn't seem like a likely search term. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title on this is very strange, and I believe that List of Indian scientists is just fine. PickleG13 (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Perhaps an article like Physics by country would be more essential before we create country specific articles like this one. Ratnahastin (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tajmar

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Spaceflight, and Germany. jps (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note the past discussion from 2008 about whether this article should be deleted seemed to have suffered at the time from an undue credulity that the ideas for which Tajmar's notability was being argued, were somehow not WP:FRINGE proposals. The benefit of time, I hope, shows that they really, truly are and that the sourcing does not rise to the required WP:FRIND levels for proper inclusion in our encyclopedia. jps (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with sourcing required. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Wynwick55gl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Which sourcing? The user has even made a userpage "self-identifying" as a SPA, making it seem more like a block evader than anything else. Geschichte (talk) 08:46, 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 [2] 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]

Delete per above, does not todaly clear WP:GNG. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was looking through all of his highly cited papers (100+ citations) which are usually relevant to establish NPROF#1 notability and of the 5 papers, none of them were actual research papers with him as first author, the others were either large collaborations with dozens of authors or review papers or a book. There is one paper that contains some experimental data on a particular type of propulsion method but one moderately cited paper is not enough for NPROF. Based on this I dont think we can reasonably argue that he passes WP:NPROF#1 and I could not find evidence for him passing any other criteria of NPROF. --hroest 15:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Total refraction

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 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)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Spaceflight. jps (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure to meet WP:NPROF. Only two of the seven sources cited are independent of him, and those two don't provide significant coverage of Woodward, but rather more about the flaws in weird propulsion science. More telling, we can compare Woodward's h-index of 58[3] with what's typical for a full professor in the sciences [4], suggesting that he isn't notable, but rather average in terms of scholarly impact. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Google Scholar profile page is for a different James Woodward, a philosopher of science who worked at the University of Pittsburgh. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think [this is the correct page for the current subject at CSU. --hroest 13:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Colorado, New York, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find evidence that Woodward is notable (in either the colloquial or the Wikipedian sense of the word) as a person. The general topic of esoteric space drives that would require violations of known physics is encyclopedia-worthy, like perpetual motion machines and squaring the circle. But the "Mach effect" is just one proposal in a long line of them. I doubt there's enough in reliable sources about it to justify giving it an article, and there's certainly much less justification for having an article about Woodward as a person. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, if suitable WP:RS exists the theories can be assigned to some relevant article, but they seem minor even in that odd line of concepts. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the similarity of name and topic I am convinced that all the publications that might contribute to WP:PROF#C1 are by the other James F. Woodward (who is definitely notable despite our problems with his article) and that all publications that might contribute to notability for this James F. Woodward are fringe physics. They don't have enough citations for #C1, and I was unable to find reviews that might contribute to WP:AUTHOR for his book Making Starships and Stargates: The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes, let alone the mainstream reviews needed for WP:NPOV-compliant coverage of this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 10:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I taught physics twice and had my articles rejected after peer review by Ralph Alpher. That doesn't make me notable, and neither does it make this guy, who fails PROF badly. We are not the place to post original content and we never have. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the current state of the article is not good, WP:PROF is not the only metric for notability. WP:GNG may be satisfied. Woodward's career, and the fringe nature of his research, has been covered in depth by the likes of Scientific American^[1] Wired magazine,^[2] Big Think,^[3] as well as a shorter article in the Orange County Register.^[4] His research is summarized and built upon briefly in a paper by Martin Tajmar.^[5] I'm not well-versed in physics, theoretical, or otherwise, but if someone did a deep literature dive it's plausible even more reliable secondary coverage could be found. If people and/or their ideas have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, then they are notable. Simply summarizing Woodward's controversial research, as Wired and Scientific American have, should not be considered promotion of it. The third-party sources I've found in a few minutes of googling can largely replace the existing primary sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out Martin Tajmar article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Tajmar (2nd nomination). N.b. Wired and Scientific American did not do their due diligence in seeing how out-on-a-limb this guy (and others in those articles) really is. See WP:SENSATION -- which is, sadly, what both of these otherwise upstanding source fell into. As for OCR and Big Think, those two sources are much more commonly recognized for credulity pushing. jps (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-science magazines and websites are generally unsuitable for writing about fringe topics. They nearly inevitably skew to the sensationalist; they've been known to grant unearned credibility to total nonsense. (The industry has a history of getting suckered by space drive stories in particular.) Credulously "summarizing" claims that violate basic principles of physics is promoting them. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not pass WP:NPROF. Note that there are at least two people with the same name, one which is the current subject with an h index of 10 and a second (history) professor at Pittsburgh with an h-index of 29. Therefore he doesnt pass NPROF#1 and given how little reception he gets inside academia I think it is hard to argue that he passes any of the points in NPROF. --hroest 13:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, I'm not going to be nice here. Sorry for being so confrontational, y'all, but it really feels like none of you even bothered to look up sources properly (other than the only other person who clearly did and then decided to vote Keep because they actually took the time to look). The guy's fringe, 100%. He's also definitely not a WP:PROF pass, 100%. However, the WP:GNG seems very clearly satisfied by multiple years of news coverage of his fringe-y work, not to mention scientific papers discussing his ideas or debunking them (even if some are written by other fringe-y credulists, they're still in proper journals) that addresses his claims as the main subject of the papers and not just as an aside.

This seems like an attempt to delete subjects entirely because they're fringe, without any regard for actual GNG notability standards. Which is, sadly, fairly standard for Fringe topic noticeboard regulars and there's been multiple cases where I had to come in and actually argue for our notability policies previously.

Beyond Einstein? by Stephen Notley, Edmonton Journal (1999)
Woodward’s Wormholes by Sherri Cruz, The Orange County Register (2013)
Set the controls for the stars by Gwynne Dyer, Kimberley Bulletin (2018)
Is it Space Drive Time? by John G. Cramer, Analog Science Fiction and Fact (2014)
Mach Propulsion, All About Space
Mach-Effect thruster model by M. Tajmar, Acta Astronautica (2017)
Possible Mach Effects in Bodies Accelerated by NonUniform Magnetic Fields by N. Buldrini, Physics Procedia (2011)
A Machian wave effect in conformal, scalar–tensor gravitational theory by José J. A. Rodal, General Relativity and Gravitation (2019)
Future Spacecraft Propulsion Systems and Integration by Paul A. Czysz, Claudio Bruno, Bernd Chudoba, Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Making starships and stargates by E. Kincanon, Choice Reviews

So, if we want to have a discussion about the sources that actually exist, most of which were easily findable from a Google search, then let's please do that. Rather than claiming there aren't any sources, which is easily debunkable. Being fringe pseudoscience doesn't mean non-notable. Silver seren^C 02:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

Food contact chemical

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Science. UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is not about the chemicals per se. The topic is instead their transfer into food during cooking or storage. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term FCC is one used in published documents as cited. So I’m not sure I agree this article warrants deletion. Can you provide more justification for deletion? Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is defining the term and lists which things fall in the definition, and categorize them in various ways. This is not an encyclopedia article. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I’m curious if the view is the article is not encyclopedic or that it’s not notable. If the former, the author could update it to be so. I do think it’s notable. Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Dictdef, by definition, is not enclyclopedic. This should not have been accepted at AFC as it is not an encyclopedia article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first two paragraphs with Food contact materials whose scope already covers this topic and includes some of the impacts of chemical migration from packaging to food (legislation/regulations). The third paragraph might be salvagable, but a list of chemicals that can be found in food because of their packaging probably lacks too much context. ⇌ Synpath 14:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: Not substantial enough to warrant a standalone page. Overlaps with the context and coverage of Food contact materials and should be merged with that article (with a redirect left in place). WeWake (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ising critical exponents

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 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. Reywas92^Talk 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... Reywas92^Talk 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]

Merge to universality class. Most of the numbers are already there, and so is an explanation of the notation. (I am revising my opinion after more fully surveying the articles in this topic area.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to merge this information into a streamlined set of articles including (or reorganizing) Ising model, Universality class, Square lattice Ising model, Two-dimensional critical Ising model and Kramers–Wannier duality (which is currently all about the Ising model except for some "other contexts" mentioned in passing). This could help to provide context clarifying the notability of the critical exponents and the methods used to obtain them, rather than giving us a short listicle tabulating a handful of numbers (most of which are already also in Universality class). That said, in practice I doubt we have a group with the time and inclination to carry out this streamlining (I can't volunteer), and in the absence of that I wouldn't object to leaving things as they are. --David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 12:06, 9 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]

Keep given that notability has been established above, I'm not understanding why we should do anything with this article - let's leave it as it is. Stockhausenfan (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetically enhanced Physical Vapor Deposition

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Science, and Engineering. 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 [5] 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:

Is the discussion at The Globe and Mail in-depth? How many words are there about EPVD?
Global Defence Technology via NRIDigital is an interview of the CEO of Paradigm Shift Technologies, so much of it is not independent.
"and Security" link does not work.
Shephard Media is behind the paywall, but also seems like an interview of the CEO. How much information is there about the process?
The fact sheet does contain a short description of the process
contract listing is another 404
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]
Fristly, yes, the company would be notable. Secondly, the 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) 08:00, 12 June 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]

Comment. Perhaps there are adequate sources for an article about the company, and this info can be part of it? ScienceFlyer (talk) 07:17, 3 June 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]

Comment I do not see any evidence being provided above that is a justification for retaining this article. The author, Benyamin21 has defended it as having assorted coverage. However, very little is independent or major. For instance quoting a SBIR grant page as evidence that the US Navy verifies the technique is inappropriate.

Most critical, none of the sources or the text describe what the technique is. The use of magnetic fields in thin film deposition is routine, see for instance here. The claim that this approach coats surfaces that PVD cannot reach is 100% original research as there is no attempt to provide any verification, it fails WP:Proveit as several editors have noted above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unverified claims are not permitted, this is perhaps the most established rule of Wikipedia.

Ldm1954 (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The EPVD® process is a patented and proprietary technology, which is why detailed descriptions are not publicly posted, unless you search for the patents, which are public. This confidentiality is standard for innovative technologies in competitive industries like defense and coatings. Similar to Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) , which is widely known by its trade name Teflon® and whose production details remain proprietary, EPVD® has been independently validated and recognized for its unique capabilities that set it apart from all other PVD type coatings.

Unlike traditional PVD, which is limited to EXTERNAL surfaces, EPVD® enables coatings on INTERNAL surfaces of complex geometries, such as gun barrels, which PVD cannot achieve. This distinction is critical for defense applications and has been validated by credible sources, including the SERDP/ESTCP Fact Sheet and the U.S. Navy contract. Additionally, EPVD® was awarded one of the "Top Cutting Edge Coating Solutions in 2025" by Aerospace & Defense Review 1, demonstrating its industry impact and innovation. Benyamin21 (talk) 08:39, 13 June 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

[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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]