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]

Florence Débarre

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Florence Débarre (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)

Subject does not appear to meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:NPROF. While she is quoted in a BBC article, the mention is brief and does not constitute significant coverage per WP:N. The NZZ article offers more sigificant coverage, but still falls short of the in-depth, sustained coverage required to establish independent notability. The bronze medal from CNRS hardly makes her notable either. BoldPlatypus (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scurlock Foundation

[edit]
Scurlock 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)

This page could easily be contained by Eddy C. Scurlock, if there's anything extra to add here. It lacks WP:SIGCOV + requires additional sourcing for the claims on the page currently. 30Four (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation

[edit]
John Simon Guggenheim Memorial 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)

The information on this page is redundant to the Simon Guggenheim and Guggenheim Fellowships pages and serves no purpose on its own. A majority of recent press seems to be reporting on the Fellowships handed out by the foundation, which would be applicable to the page mentioning the Fellowships. As it stands, the information on this page could easily be held on either, if not both, related pages. 30Four (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conductivity near the percolation threshold

[edit]
Conductivity near the percolation threshold (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)

Dubious notability of an obscure physics subject. Article is based on four primary sources only. --Altenmann >talk 18:15, 26 May 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]

Towards Women Participation in Scientific Research in Africa

[edit]
Towards Women Participation in Scientific Research in Africa (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)

No evidence this book passes WP:NBOOK. The only sources are the book itself ([5]) or its authors ([6]), funder ([7] [8], [9]) or publisher ([10]). A WP:BEFORE search turns up no independent, secondary reviews and/or WP:SIGCOV of this publication. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 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 [11] 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]

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]

James Noble (computer scientist)

[edit]
James Noble (computer scientist) (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)

Self-published article; notability not established Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Oaktree b can you have a look at his https://sites.google.com/aito.org/home/aito-dahl-nygaard/2016-winners GS profile] for re-evaluation, he seems clearly notable in my book. --hroest 01:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need a ton more sourcing than that, we still need sources that talk about the person Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Oaktree b no we dont, this is a WP:NPROF evaluation. --hroest 19:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One source showing he won a prize still isn't enough sourcing, it indicates a pass at notability. I'm trying to avoid permastub articles. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Major awards must be confirmed, claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on.
Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." Sources, plural, indicating at least two. I still don't see those. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we need independent sources for his h-index and the award. These are provided by Google Scholar, Scopus and the organization that provides the award (independent from the subject). This is exactly how the guidelines are supposed to work. To clarify: the subject cannot just upload a CV to his institution and claim to be a highly respected and highly cited professor. However, if independent sources confirm that he got an award and is highly cited, then this criteria is fulfilled. --hroest 01:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person does not attain notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). His racist (see 2022 deletion) views in themselves are not relevant but they illustrate the use he is making of this article for promotion of political views. This is confirmed by his edit today at Waitangi Tribunal, where his edit cannot be attributed to ignorance or a good faith error, due to his background in academia. The one secondary source provided is of low quality and focuses on only one event, in 2016. Even if accepted as a genuine RSS, because it is only one event, he is not deemed notable. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC) (this is a duplicate vote for reasons stated below this. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]
@Roger 8 Roger, your nomination is taken as a delete !vote. You can't also !vote in the discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Miscellaneous advice. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy Protect PROMO RACIST per nom. BLP1E. POV
    why this is still here? - this article is well below multiple criteria for speedy deletion (G10, G11, A6, A7) as well as notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT).
    In particular, the only reference cited by the wikipedia page has no actual information on the subject! That should be more than enough to get rid of this (as if the rest of it wasn't enough). Jameskjx (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming you are James Noble (the connection between username is obvious) you can request self-deletion of your article per WP:BLPREQUEST, I'd look into that if you don't want an article (Assuming you are James Noble). Traumnovelle (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Winning a prize is not enough to make a whole article. As it stands it's barely enough for a stub. What notable contributions to computer science has he made? What has he published? I realize that Google Scholar could probably shed light on these questions, but it's the author's job to study these. Athel cb (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete speedy... Jameskjx (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Almost the entire discussion above is predicated on the wrong notability criterion, WP:GNG, when he should be evaluated against WP:PROF, which is independent of GNG and does not require independent sourcing. The nomination statement is worse, as says nothing about WP:BEFORE evaluation against notability criteria beyond the merest WP:VAGUEWAVE. His citation record passes WP:PROF#C1. "Founding Editor-In-Chief of the journal Transactions on Pattern Languages of Programming" (removed as part of large-scale gutting of the article by the deletion nominator) passes WP:PROF#C8. Fellow of the Institute of IT Professionals of New Zealand and the British Computer Society could well pass WP:PROF#C3 depending how selective they are. Full professorship in the UK system operating at NZ universities is somewhat more selective than at US universities and may be a step towards #C5, although I think not a full step in that direction. The award is a pass of WP:PROF#C2 (for the senior-level award, the one he has; the junior one wouldn't be): we describe it as a highly prestigious in its area (software engineering, a major subfield of computer science) and every winner is bluelinked, significant evidence for its prestigiousness. Deleting this article would make him the only non-linked winner. He may have expressed distasteful views in his social media but that is not part of the article and not an argument for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Bearian please have a look at WP:NPROF first before you cast your vote. An academic is not a dancer, we have very clear guidelines in WP:NPROF which are sufficient for notability. Other guidelines that you cite do not apply here. We do have multiple sources to establish notability per WP:NPROF#1, namely Google Scholar and Scopus. --hroest 03:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it and have discussed PROF in hundreds of AfDs. When I see at least one more reliable, independent, secondary source about him in the article, then I'll change my !vote. You do your thing. Bearian (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we agree that NPROF applies here and even that he potentially passes NPROF? If we agree on that, NPROF states that the guideline is independent from WP:BIO and is explicitly an alternative path to notability and that any reliable source that demonstrates NPROF#1 or NPROF#2 is sufficient. Your request for additional sources again is covered by NPROF which clearly states that no independent sources to confirm trivial undisputed facts are required under NPROF. Are you disputing that a reliable source exists to demonstrate that he passes NPROF or are you unhappy with NPROF as a guideline itself? Because reading your argument it seems you are trying to challenge NPROF itself and its assertion that it provides an alternative path to notability independent of GNG. However this AfD is not the correct place to have this discussion, if you disagree with NPROF itself, we should have this discussion over there. --hroest 15:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While it isn't a usable independent source, he has a bio here that might indicate other places to look for further information. He is an adjunct prof, but was a prof from 2003 to 2022, and seems to be currently freelancing. His CV (very detailed) lists other awards. Would confirming those add to notability? Lamona (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking into the awards, although most are not "big" - these are awards given to the "best paper" at a conference, and I don't think they are enough for notability:
    • Best Paper Award, Eighth European Conference on Pattern Languages of Program Design (EuroPLoP) 2003
    • Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference “Best Paper Award” 2010.
    This also does not seem to be notable in the WP sense:
    • VUW PGSA Award: Best Supervisor in the Faculty of Engineering 2010.
    This is the only one I have so far been able to confirm that might be significant but not sufficient:
    • The ACM SIGPLAN Most Influential OOPSLA Paper for 2008, was shared by the three authors of the paper: David G. Clarke, John M. Potter, and James Noble
    Lamona (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NPROF states 'Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources', but no reliable sources (a CV isn't reliable its self-published) have been presented. Notability ultimately cannot override WP:V and if there are no reliable sources to use we simply cannot maintain an article irrespective of SNGs. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle the reliable sources in this case are Scopus and Google Scholar to substantiate the claim he passes NPROF#1 and the organization providing the award for the claim he passes NPROF#2. All of these sources are independent from the subject and can be considered reliable. But yes, just trusting the CV doesnt do but these sources hold up. --hroest 17:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what exactly can you write with these sources? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle Nothing per se but that is not the point, the point is that reliable, independent sources establish notability and the article can then be written per his CV / institutional page and biography on the award homepage as WP:NPROF intended. There is a very specific reason things are done this way for academics, to avoid the embarrassment of the Donna Strickland case. Often academics do not have SIGCOV but are notable due to their contributions to advance human knowledge in a field as judged by experts in that specific field but not widely known to the general public. --hroest 12:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY states 'Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article' and WP:SNG states 'Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.' If we cannot write an actual article with reliable independent sources then we should not have one. NPROF allows for less coverage but there should still be something so we can have an actual article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Citation record looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1, even in a medium citation field, as backed up by Google Scholar [12]. I don't think that the editorship of the series Transactions on Pattern Languages [13] passes NPROF C8, but it may give some support. I take the Dahl-Nygaard prize somewhat more seriously for NPROF C2 [14]. I am skeptical of NPROF C3 -- the British Computer Society fellowship, per their description [15] does not seem to be the kind of fellowship that we're looking for. The Institute of IT Professional fellowship looks a little stronger [16], although I'm uncertain whether it is the kind of scholarly society that we are looking for. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor being discussed has recently added a lengthy comment to a talk page discussion here. It may or may not be relevant to this discussion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NPROF is a guideline and WP:V is a policy. WP:DELETION, which is also policy states 'If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.'
Simply put if we do not have any sources to verify basic details to have an actual article and not just a list of his papers and awards we should not have an article, irrespective of any WP:SNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per David Eppstein, he meets WP:PROF. I have added back two sources - the 2016 Dahl-Nygaard Prize winners (which includes a bio of Noble), and his Victoria University Wellington profile. Such university profile pages are the main source of info for academics - their notability comes through the criteria listed at WP:PROF. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did add back two sources. The nominator of this AfD (who deleted text and refs before bringing the article to AfD) has deleted the university profile, with the edit summary "Best not to edit this article while an AFD is taking place." Wikipedia:Guide to deletion states clearly WP:EDITATAFD "You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period." RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nobel meets WP:NPROF according to the criteria and verified by sources specified there. If you are unfamiliar with NPROF and think it is something Wikipedia should not use, raise the issue elsewhere. This is the not the place for such discussions.
StarryGrandma (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, I see no consensus. Arguments seem to rest on whether meeting WP:NPROF is sufficient in itself to Keep an article or whether other policies should be valued more highly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be specific, as well as important, we are not looking for other policies because WP:NPROF is a guideline, not a policy. It is poorly written anyway but read it carefully and it boils down to a person having to be notable as verified by independent reliable secondary sources, both of which are policy requirements. The notability hinges on several citations to several academic publications that name him as one of the authors. The 2016 prize was a single event and as such should be dismissed as not enough to verify notability. Based on some of the comments here, almost every person teaching at a tertiary institution who happens to have her or his name added to two or three internally published papers that sit gathering dust on a library shelf, suddenly becomes notable and worthy of an Wikipedia article. Does it matter that the subject of the article in question also says, above, that it should be deleted? I agree, a wider audience would be welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @User:Roger 8 Roger it seems like you are intentionally trying to discredit WP:NPROF which was written after lots of discussion and debate, if you have something to contribute please dont hijack the current AfD for your grievances. almost every person teaching at a tertiary institution who happens to have her or his name added to two or three internally published papers that sit gathering dust on a library shelf, suddenly becomes notable and worthy of an Wikipedia article. is a deliberate misrepresentation of the intent, spirit and letter of WP:NPROF which is written to exactly prevent that which you could have gathered from reading the documents point #1 "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Passing NPROF is sufficient for notability. Cheers --hroest 13:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Roger 8 Roger, please remember that Wikipedia:Notability, including the WP:GNG section, is also "merely a guideline". StarryGrandma (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly surprising responses. StarryGrandma, why should I remove a factual statement? I will remove the word 'merely' which could be seen as a slight but that is all. It does sound as if you want to ignore the fact that WP:NPROF is a guideline, not policy, but I assume that is not what you mean. Please elaborate if you want to. Hi hrest, I'm not hijacking or discrediting anything, or dismissing WP:NPROF. If you mean the 'poorly written' part, I think it is - it is too detailed and constantly uses 'impact'. (What's wrong with 'effect' or 'affect'.? It looks as though a small group of editors has written some rules that allow them to sideline Wikipedia policy rules. But this is off-topic. I'm sorry if you were one of the team who wrote the guideline, I'm just giving an opinion. To get back on topic, and the quotation you use, yes, I do think that (only) in some cases, certain people are unreasonably elevated to a position of notability. Academics would sometimes fit that description. I want to keep it simple - what makes this person notable outside a very small clique? I am sorry if my mildly flowery language has upset anyone. Removed 'merely'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of female Breakthrough Prize laureates

[edit]
List of female Breakthrough Prize laureates (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:NLIST. Being a distinguished female scientist is not considered especially notable in the 21st century, and there is no notice of such laureates as a group. Breakthrough Prize has a list of all winners (teeny tiny though it may be). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sol Foundation

[edit]
The Sol 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)

More than a year ago, Melcous correctly added our template for excessive reliance on non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources to this article on a UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan.

In any case ,the underlying issue has gone unresolved. I conducted a truncated WP:BEFORE consisting exclusively of a Google News search (because, given the subject, it's obviously not going to appear in any journal or book).

This search found pages upon pages of references to this outfit which might incline the casual observer to presume it passes WP:N. However, on close inspection, most of these are to The Debrief, which is unambiguously non-RS. Its editor-in-chief is Micah Hanks (who also reports on Sasquatch, [17] wrote the foreword to a "non-fiction" book on monsters that purportedly live in South Carolina [18], wrote a book about something called "ghost rockets" [19], and used to host a podcast about ghosts and ESP) The other contributors of this site come from a similar pedigree.

Additional sources are WP:ROUTINE (e.g. an event listing at the San Francisco Standard [20]) or are purely incidental mentions, such as organization officers being quoted by title in stories.

Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Strong Keep I have edited my keep and refactored the prior discussion below. The article has substantially changed since this was nominated. This was the Reference section when The Sol Foundation was sent nominated to delete:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288083567#References
I have now added sources including the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Hartford Courant, Catholic News Service, Aleteia, Rice University, Newsweek, Daily Express, PopMatters, Society of Catholic Scientists, la Repubblica, Focus (German magazine), Niconico, La Razón (Madrid), Sunday World, Futurism, the International Social Science Journal, and more, and still have more yet to go through when I have time. This is the References section now after 39 edits by me:
* Archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733#References
* Live: The Sol Foundation#References
Here is all current sources sorted against WP:SIGCOV: Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV
That is coverage from seven (7) nations: the United States, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, and Japan. I think this is now a trivial keep and the AfD should be withdrawn. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek is considered generally unreliable per WP:NEWSWEEK. The Daily Express is considered generally unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS. "Popmatters.com" - a small pop culture, citizen journalism website [21] that publishes listicles like "the best albums of 1999" - is doubtfully RS for coverage of xenobiology, quantum physics, and astronautical engineering per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The La Razon article mentions the Sol Foundation once (in a title quote attribution to its founder) and is not WP:SIGCOV.
I've gone through the rest of the sources in this latest batch and they all are insufficient in similar ways, however, due to the sheer volume of sources I am truncating the written portion of my analysis for purposes of readability. (I previously evaluated a different shotgun spread of sources by the above editor in a comment I made [22] said editor has taken it upon himself to collapse.) Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Readers: Please pay attention to this.
Your La Razon remark is completely made up of whole cloth and your imagination. Why would you do that? Did you think no one read the content? The La Razon article says, "Inspirados en proyectos científicos y divulgativos, como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nollan con la Fundación SOL, o en Francia UAP Check, los miembros de UAP Digital y UAP Spain prevén la próxima creación de un Panel de expertos multidisciplinar que impulse el debate y el estudio científico sobre los Fenómenos Anómalos No Identificados en territorio europeo." That translates to, "Inspired by scientific and educational projects, such as the one launched by Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation, or by UAP Check in France, the members of UAP Digital and UAP Spain plan to create a multidisciplinary panel of experts to promote debate and scientific study on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena in Europe." Which is the citation for, "La Razón credited the Sol Foundation with having inspired similar research ventures in Spain."
How is that a "a title quote attribution to its founder"? La Razón explicitly credits the SOL Foundation itself, not just Garry Nolan or its title, as an inspiration for UAP Digital and UAP Spain’s planned expert panel. The sentence structure in Spanish--"como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nolan con la Fundación SOL"--clearly attributes the project’s inspiration to both Nolan and the SOL Foundation as entities, not merely using the Foundation’s name as a descriptor. There is no valid counterargument because the conjunction "con" ("with") grammatically links Nolan’s action to the SOL Foundation as an active collaborator or source of the project, making it impossible to interpret the Foundation as a passive or incidental mention.
The nominator has substantially misdiscribed everything. Did you notice how many of the sources are notable enough to have deeply complex Wikipedia articles themselves? The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics is a bad source for the topic of a foundation studying UFOs? Some of the sources are thorough and entire pieces on the SOL Foundation. Some are brief but relevant mentions, and all of them were picked because they were relevant and contributed to Wikipedia:Notability. Look at my user page. I don't mess around with sourcing; this was something I did rapid fire because we simply needed to demonstrate notability, not build a complex 80k+ article... yet.
Remain Very Strong Keep. Parse all of nominator's remarks carefully for accuracy at this time. I don't know what is going on. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to engage in a debate as to whether the six word phrase "Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation" constitutes WP:SIGCOV. But I acknowledge and appreciate your obvious passion for this subject. Chetsford (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Everyone knows that not every article source needs to be WP:SIGCOV. The point today is I have demonstrated breadth and scope of Wikipedia:Notability, with articles from global scales, from long to short pieces, to some that are significant and some that are minor. That's still notable. You can't minimize major international publications. You have not demonstrated in any way that The Sol Foundation lacks notability. There are still more sources, and more content (multiple citations for some) to pull out of the sourcing I've already added. There is no such thing as an AfD qualification or requirement that the article has to be in any sort of advanced state of development. Please be honest with our peers and fair. Very Strong Keep. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I have demonstrated breadth and scope of" We'll have to agree to disagree. As noted by my previous comments, your sources include WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, a citizen journalism pop culture website, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers, something called "exopolitik.com", [23] etc., etc. Chetsford (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What version of the site are you even looking at? Hartford Courant, Focus, Sunday World, the Catholic ones, AIAA, and so on? I challenge you, here and now, to show me exactly where Substack is used as a source, or else withdraw the AfD and recuse yourself from this article going forward, in perpeuity, with no option to undo that, and it will be enforced by other Admins? Do you agree?
Here, the current version right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733
Show me exactly where the text string "substack" shows up anywhere in that article. Do you agree to my terms? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it showed up "in that article." You said your comments on this Talk page "demonstrated breadth and scope". Those comments include "Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort ... substack.com/home/post/p-142904928" [24].
"Do you agree?" No thanks! Chetsford (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is what you are compelled to judge against:
I have been exceptionally clear that I am arguing against the live, production sources. You arguing against what I previously linked here and did not use in the article is irrelevant. All that matters is what is in the live article now, and what is in the article now trivially meets Wikipedia:Notability and particularly, it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Not, again, what I linked and withdrew on the AfD. What is now live. This article passes AfD now trivially. If you are unwilling to address all the sources, you are not arguing per policy, and 'good faith' becomes questionable, as you are then arguing against non-acceptable criteria which is not policy. We are all slaves here to outcomes. That includes the nominator. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated my remarks with newly found evidence.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Strong Keep -- Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort:
EDIT 1: Upgrading to strong keep. I'm already integrating these. The PopMatters article (link) is literally an entire piece devoted to the Foundation and their Symposium just by itself.
EDIT 2: I'm still finding more sources. Google Sol Foundation without quotes, add various flags like +Nolan, +UAP, +research, +UFO, +military, and so on--there's plenty. I again stand by this being an easy keep. I'm already adding sources to the live article, and there's plenty more I can add in the next few days. Have at it, all. It is unclear how OP missed all these. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT 3, again reaffirm my Strong Keep; I've added yet more sources, and here is the current references section: The Sol Foundation#References. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.popmatters.com/sol-foundation-symposium-ufos-uap
https://oxfordre.com/literature/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1348
https://mitechnews.com/guest-columns/sol-foundation-releases-17-videos-from-ufo-conference/
https://substack.com/home/post/p-142904928
https://www.courant.com/2023/11/22/how-a-stanford-professor-aims-to-organize-the-hunt-for-alien-life/
https://www.firstprinciples.org/article/serious-physicists-are-talking-about-ufos-what-changed
https://exopolitik.org/hochrangige-insider-beraten-ueber-die-zukunft-der-ufo-offenlegung/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/issj.12484
https://nowcreations.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/10-Reasons-to-Consider-the-Possibility-of-_Beyond-human-Intelligence-No-11-Sept-2024.pdf

I see more mentions yet on Google News and Google Scholar that are required to be considered. Premature nomination. Just because an article is a stub that no one has had the time or energy or will to build from available data doesn't mean it's not notable or should be deleted based on not being "done".

I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it? Certainly not. The one article I linked on the talk page alone has enough outbound links to quash any AfD there. I have found a raft of material there with a minimum energy of effort--it took me less than 5 minutes to find what I linked here for Sol Foundations. See next Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station that at first glance was hard to source, but I dug into enough data that now it's fine. This is an endemic problem on Wikipedia it appears? Just because the one user cannot or will not find data doens't mean a topic isn't notable. [[25]] is how I found Invention Secrecy Act, and now when I get the will and time to go back to it, I'm not even a third of the way into the sourcing I have saved. A more "done" article will have 70-80+ sources, not just 24. The same thing happened with how I found this article and how it's references look today. This article here was a particular pain to source and had one (1) source when I found it; click to see the current version. Just because an article takes work and is a stub still doesn't mean it's not notable.

It's also obvious "not just The Debrief" as sourcing, which is not a disallowed source in any event under any rational or widely accepted rules nor precedent or RfD or discussions anywhere. Keep for The Sol Foundation. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Oxford reference doesn't mention this at all, "exopolitik.com" is clearly not RS, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers is not RS, a PDF on the website of a guy in Ohio named Vince who works on "raising the consciousness of the planet as part of the Universal Life Force" [sic] is not RS, etc., etc., etc.
    "I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it?" Based on the sources you attached to your Keep !vote here, I'm very tempted to look at it. Chetsford (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ASPERSIONS are out of place at AfD. Thank you. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Remain Keep. Hartford Courant, Poptech, Mitechnews, First Principles, the social science journal, what's already in the article and I stopped on sources after a few pages. A topic doesn't require sourcing to be WP:GNG that means it can grow beyond a stub. A stub-level topic can be perfectly notable, and no rule says or ever will say otherwise. Keep. Also, you need to change your needlessly aggressive tone and stance, along with the routine WP:Civility boundary-pushing threats you have been applying to your recent spree of UAP-related AfDs after the Harald Malmgren AfD debacle you initiated that led to Jimmy Wales getting involved due to your actions. From an Administrator, it is grossly inappropriate. You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity. Ego has neither role nor allowance here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Keep: Chetsford's consistent use of biased terms reveals a strange anti-knowledge bias. Further, Chetsford's characterization of Nolan running a "UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan" dismisses the fact that SOL is an accredited 501-c3 which has garnered several million dollars in funding, ran 2 symposia, been the focus of dozens of news articles (as noted by others), etc. is further indication that Chetsford is running a non-scientific and biased agenda not based on Wiki rules but on his personal belief system. Professor Nolan is a world-renowned immunologist, founder of several successful companies, has dozens of US patents to his name, etc. so the purposeful use of derogatory language is reason alone for ignoring his arguments. Frankly, at this point given his past actions against Malmgren it is a surprise he does not lose his editor status and be banned. TruthBeGood (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, both per the nominator's openening argument and their subsequent rebuttal of the supposed 'sourcing' presented. We require independent, third party sources and unfortunately none of any quality have been offered. I note that so far, both 'keep' !votes not only fail to present policy-based arguments for maintaining the article, but are littered with aspersions and near-personal attacks (e,g the nom's so-called "bias", "threats" and alleged immaturity)—while themselves demanding civility! To quote, these have "neither role nor allowance here". Neither, of course, does WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, aka WP:JIMBOSAID. (Also, from a purely formating point of view, could we only bold our !votes once, please.) I have hatted the aspersons, etc., above; if they are repeated I will seek administrative involvement. The ubnderstanable passons that AfD can sometimes generate is no excuse for assuming bad faith. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, have you had the opportunity to review the rewritten article?
    It's almost completely redone since the AfD and youre !vote. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re-stating my delete !vote for the record. If it's required, as it seems to be á la mode, call it a Very Strong Delete. The article has been expanded in byteage, but the sources are of no better quality, unfourtunately, so WP:HEY doesn't apply (as an example of WP:HEY in an AfD, see for example at Becky Sharp, for Nations of 1984 or in Concordat of Worms, et al.). As has been established by the nom's thorough analysis of the new sources, few of them are both independent or indepth. None support the claims made to WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG, while support !votes themselves seem to rely on non-policy based arguments (e.g. BUTITEXISTS, an argument to avoid, using WP:OR to analyse sources' claims, and suggesting that all opinions given equal weight). And that's ignoring the continued questioning of other editors' motives. The keep !votes are, perhaps unsurprisingly, greater in number; they are, equally unsurprisingly however, weaker in policy. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated aspersions from now-indefinitely blocked editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Per rules please point out exactly the aspersion cast. Don't claim you want sources while not providing any specifics. Chetsford and others have already been chastised for their behavior. Pointing this out is not an aspersion, just a fact. Now-- to policy...
    Arguing policy: Under WP:GNG an article is retained when independent, reliable secondary sources provide significant coverage—coverage that is neither trivial nor purely routine. The Sol Foundation article meets that threshold: a feature story in the Hartford Courant profiles the group’s formation and scientific aims, offering far more depth than a press notice; Newsweek devotes several paragraphs to the Foundation’s inaugural symposium and quotes its mission statement in the context of national UAP-policy debates; the Daily Express, Sunday World, and Germany’s Focus supply further analysis of its policy recommendations. Because these outlets have no editorial connection to the Foundation, each instance satisfies WP:RS and demonstrates the independence required by WP:V. Taken together, the sources show sustained, serious reportage—not fleeting mentions—so the article clears GNG without difficulty.
    WP:ORG presumes notability when multiple reliable publications discuss an organization in detail, and the Foundation easily qualifies. A culture-journalism treatment in PopMatters chronicles its November 2024 symposium and describes the think-tank’s research agenda; a peer-reviewed paper in Wiley’s International Social Science Journal cites the Foundation’s role in advancing UAP scholarship, establishing academic relevance; trade coverage in Aerospace America and mainstream religious press such as Catholic News Service document its participation in government-civic forums. That range—from metropolitan newspaper to peer-reviewed journal—confirms breadth of interest across sectors and disciplines, negating any claim that the topic relies on press releases or fringe blogs. Because Wikipedia evaluates notability by what independent authors have written, not by the subject’s fame, the clustering of these independent, substantive sources fulfills both the letter and the spirit of WP:ORG; deletion would therefore contradict core inclusion policy.
    Under WP:NPOV the encyclopedia must represent all significant, verifiable perspectives without editorial prejudice. The existing Sol Foundation article does exactly that: it reports the group’s origins, research aims, and public activities strictly as described in independent secondary sources, while attributing any evaluative language—positive or skeptical—to those sources. There is no advocacy or promotional tone; where reliable outlets raise doubts the article can and should include them in proportion, preserving balance. By contrast, deletion proposals that dismiss the foundation as a mere “UFO club” or label its founder an “enthusiast” introduce pejorative framing not supported by the cited coverage and thus clash with NPOV’s prohibition on subjective language.
    Removing a well-sourced article because some editors question the topic’s legitimacy would itself create a neutrality problem: it would excise documented information from mainstream newspapers, journals, and trade magazines, leaving Wikipedia’s treatment of UAP research incomplete and skewed by omission. NPOV requires that content be judged on the reliability and independence of its sources, not on individual editors’ attitudes toward unconventional subjects. Keeping the article therefore upholds neutrality by presenting verifiable facts for readers to evaluate, whereas deletion would substitute editorial bias for documented evidence—contradicting both NPOV and the broader principle that Wikipedia “does not censor topics that are reliably sourced, even if controversial or fringe.”
    Opponents claim the article “fails GNG” because its citations are routine or incidental, yet the record shows multiple feature-length, independent pieces—Hartford Courant profile, PopMatters symposium report, Newsweek analysis, Wiley journal article—that exceed the “significant coverage” threshold in WP:GNG and satisfy WP:ORG’s requirement for reliable, third-party sourcing. Those who invoked WP:BEFORE overlooked or dismissed these sources; the assertion that such material “obviously won’t appear in any journal or book” is disproven by the peer-reviewed ISSJ paper. In short, the corpus is more than adequate, and routine mentions are supplementary, not foundational. Labeling Hartford Courant, Newsweek, or Wiley as “none of any quality” misstates WP:RS; these outlets are plainly reliable under policy, and their presence confirms notability.
    Other objections collapse on closer inspection. The article does not “lean on” The Debrief; even if that site were excluded entirely, mainstream and academic coverage remains plentiful. Claims of promotionalism ignore that the text is fully attributed, neutral in tone, and free of puffery, whereas the deletion rationale itself applies pejorative language (“UFO club,” “enthusiast”) that violates WP:NPOV. Finally, WP:ILIKE/IDONTLIKE dictates that editorial sentiment is irrelevant; Wikipedia retains topics documented in reliable, independent sources regardless of their perceived seriousness or controversy. Because those sources exist in abundance and the article can be readily refined to reflect them, deletion would contradict core inclusion policy rather than enforce it.
    Applying the consistency principle embedded in WP:N, Wikipedia should judge the Sol Foundation by the same sourcing threshold that has long sustained analogous entries. Earlier UAP bodies such as NICAP and CUFOS were retained once magazines like Time and major newspapers profiled them; the Sol Foundation already matches or exceeds that level of coverage, with features in Newsweek, Hartford Courant, PopMatters, and a peer-reviewed Wiley journal. Comparable new ventures—Harvard’s 2021 Galileo Project, assorted think tanks, and niche NGOs—have been kept on the strength of a handful of reliable articles in mainstream or specialist press; the Foundation’s two well-reported symposia, plus national and international reportage, clearly meet that same bar. To impose a higher standard merely because the topic involves UAPs would contradict WP:ORG’s call for uniform treatment across subject areas.
    Wikipedia also favors improvement over excision. During the AfD one editor added additional mainstream and academic citations, after which the article unambiguously satisfied WP:GNG; policy dictates that once independent coverage is shown, remaining disputes—e.g., over one Debrief citation—are resolved by normal editing, not deletion. Finally, WP:V reminds us that inclusion rests on what reliable sources publish, irrespective of whether the work is speculative or controversial. The encyclopedia already hosts entries on paranormal institutes, alternative-medicine centers, and To The Stars Academy precisely because significant independent coverage exists. The Sol Foundation now enjoys a comparable evidentiary record; deleting it would depart from established precedent and apply an inconsistent, topic-specific gate that policy expressly rejects.
    Strong keep. The Sol Foundation unambiguously meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG: mainstream and academic outlets—Hartford Courant, Newsweek, PopMatters, Wiley’s International Social Science Journal, among others—provide non-trivial, independent, and reliable coverage. All statements in the article are verifiable (WP:V) from these high-quality sources (WP:RS), and the text is written in an even-handed, fact-based style that satisfies WP:NPOV.
    Objections centered on alleged source weakness or routine mention collapse once the full reference set is examined; a handful of marginal citations cannot override the weight of substantial reporting. Policy favors improvement over deletion, and the article has already been fortified with additional reliable citations during the AfD. Removing it would excise well-sourced information and create a gap in Wikipedia’s treatment of contemporary UAP research, contrary to the project’s mandate to document notable topics neutrally and comprehensively. TruthBeGood (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The few sentences I have read of the walls of text above haven't given me much motivation to read more, but evaluating this one on the merits: First, we have 2 unambiguous RS mentions: a brief mention in the Oxford reference ("In 2023, Garry Nolan established the Sol Foundation, a research center dedicated to the interdisciplinary study of UAP."), and an article from Focus discussing the org in depth. Second, we have lots of incidental mentions in RS, which are not themselves sufficient to establish notability but do support it. Third, although sources like The Debrief shouldn't be considered reliable for making claims about UAP, they are being used here to establish the existence and nature of a UAP-related organization, which could be acceptable. This, combined with the fact that several people are continuing to actively seek out and add new sources to the article, paints a picture of a low quality article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems, so I'm landing on keep and improve with this one. -- LWG talk 22:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Closer Re Offsite Discussion of this AfD. Extensive and impassioned offsite discussion of this AfD is occurring on Reddit's r/aliens and r/ufos (e.g. [26], etc.) and on X (e.g. [27], [28], etc.). Chetsford (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, as with other topics in this area there seems to have been a certain amount of WP:REFBOMBING going on in this article (with things like PR press releases being cited for some reason). I'm not seeing the multiple reliable WP:SIGCOV sources needed for WP:NORG, and I disagree that the one sentence in the oxford source counts for this, and I also disagree that a bunch of passing mentions/mentions in unreliable sources somehow makes up for this fact (and this isn't supported by my reading of WP:GNG) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask what unreliable sources you see here? Express and the PR thing from Japan (which was only there to give easier English language context to the other Japanese media source) are both gone.
    Several of the articles are about SOL specifically. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:HEY and WP:ATD. When it was nominated I would have voted the other way, per WP:TOOSOON, but with the newly added material I feel it now just crosses the line of notability and will likely improve in the future. 5Q5|✉ 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Among the newly added sources like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, etc., which do you think are the best examples that prove SIGCOV here? Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV
I've assembled this here for users to review. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments made by LWG and 5Q5. The article's improved substantially since nomination and good RSes have been identified. An an aside, remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs. National Catholic Reporter and The Debrief aren't RSes for the existence of God or UFOs, but they're fine to verify specific groups of notable people have joined together to promote a shared belief. Noting that someone believes in Sasquatch isn't actually a argument for deletion: Ghosts, Ghost rockets, and the Holy Ghost are all 100% encyclopedic topics. Feoffer (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs" I'm not familiar with that policy. Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was just an aside. GNG is met per LWG and 5Q5. More abstract discussion is for some other page.Feoffer (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS WP:SIGCOV Notes
The Central Minnesota Catholic Yes Maybe No One sentence mention of The Sol Foundation
Marin Independent Journal Yes Yes No Article is about organization's founder Garry Nolan; contains one sentence mention of Sol Foundation
Rice University "Archives of the Impossible" conference website No Maybe Maybe Two sentence mention of the Sol Foundation in the speaker bio for Garry Nolan at a conference at which he was speaking
Newsweek Yes No No Consensus-determined unreliable source per WP:NEWSWEEK
International Social Science Journal Yes Yes No One sentence mention of The Sol Foundation in this 33-page article
popmatters.com Yes No Yes WP:USERGENERATED entertainment website
. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Yes Yes No Another one sentence mention
Society of Catholic Scientists Yes Yes No Another one sentence mention
la Repubblica Yes Yes No Another one sentence mention
Focus Magazine Yes Yes Yes Report on the club's conference
Niconico Unknown No Unknown WP:USERGENERATED video sharing site a la YouTube
La Razón Yes Yes No Another one sentence mention
arXiv Unknown No Unknown Community-determined unreliable per WP:ARXIV (preprint hosting service)
The Debrief Yes No Yes The Debrief is the new website landing page for the podcast of ghosts/cryptozoology/ESP/flying saucer blogger Micah Hanks. While presented with an attractive new skin and under the headline "science and tech", it's the same pseudoscientific entertainment fanzine. Recent podcast episodes have uncritically discussed remote viewing [29], Atlantis / Lemuria [30], Thunderbirds [31], "The Deep State" [32], and Ancient Aliens-style cruft [33].
Sunday World Yes No No The Sunday World is a tabloid news outlet a la WP:DAILYEXPRESS and regularly peddles a variety of 'weird news' type articles. There's just a one sentence mention, in any case.
Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In your source evaluation, you left out Aleteia (2 mentions), Hartford Courant (3 mentions), The_Byte (3 mentions). WP:NEWSWEEK says: "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis." WP:ARXIV says: "generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts." The arXiv paper was written by subject matter expert Matthew Szydagis, a university physics professor who is also a member of UAP orgs. This is a lot of media coverage for a foundation less than two years old. Even if the article were to be deleted, it will surely be republished. Just tag it at top with {{more citations needed}}. 5Q5|✉ 12:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching that. It appears each of the three I missed are more fleeting, incidental mentions that only prove the organization exists (which is not in doubt), but don't meet the requirements of WP:ORGCRIT.
Insofar as Newsweek; when we evaluate an outlet, like Newsweek, on a case by case basis that (usually) means we accept some limited use for the mundane and routine. Obviously, reporting on a club of people whose leader may believe aliens are jumping through dimensional portals to conduct medical experiments on humans [34] is not the kind of basic, nuts and bolts use portended by WP:NEWSWEEK.
Insofar as arXiv goes, generously assuming the author is an expert, it may be usable for WP:V under WP:SPS, but unpublished manuscripts are -- by the fact they're unpublished -- not significant in coverage so are not SIGCOV. That said, a physics professor is no more an SME on flying saucers than a professor of music theory, since flying saucer belief is not a subject that falls within the bailiwick of physics. An SME on flying saucers might be a professor of folklore or sociology, or a clinical psychiatrist. Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On this narrow point, I gotta side with Chetsford. If we let everyone with a Phd and ARXIV qualify as a SME expert, we'd be lost. It's not "scientifically important", that's a red herring. Feoffer (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, The Debrief is reliable in the very limited context of profiling a like-minded organization. No one questions that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one questions that the group exists. Indeed, no one does. But see WP:BUTITEXISTS. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll reword. Not to put too fine a point on it: no one questions The Debrief's reporting that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Existence ≠ Notability Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one here has suggested otherwise. At issue is whether Debrief functions as an RS in the very limited context of profiling an association of notable people with admittedly fringe beliefs. Feoffer (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The community has previously critically discussed TheDebrief [35]. Opinions ranged from "Treat it as a group blog / self published source" (User:MrOllie); "the DeBrief is weighted toward generating sensational clickbait rather than reliably sourced journalism" (User:LuckyLouie); "Largely self-published website with a lean towards UFO/alien crankery and sometimes questionable pop science takes" (User:Bon_courage). MatthewM stated it was "highly credible, least biased, and mostly factual". Chetsford (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get it, it's a complex source, but look just at the matter at hand. Is there any reason their 'reporting' is mistaken or erroneous about who is in the organization and what they've said in the direct quotes? Feoffer (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown. We can't undertake the WP:OR needed to analyze the veracity of specific claims. The only thing we can say for certain is it doesn't meet our standards of reliability. Chetsford (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: User's assessment of Popmatters is factually completely wrong; it's like saying the "New Yorker" is USERGENERATED because they take open submissions. They clearly have editorial control as seen here. From our own sourced article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PopMatters#Staff:
PopMatters publishes content from worldwide contributors. Its staff includes writers from backgrounds ranging from academics and professional journalists to career professionals and first time writers. Many of its writers are published authorities in various fields of study.[2][7] Notable former contributors include David Weigel, political reporter for Slate,[8] Steven Hyden, staff writer for Grantland and author of Whatever Happened to Alternative Nation?,[9] and Rob Horning, executive editor of The New Inquiry.[10] Karen Zarker is the senior editor.
As I said above, assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles in direct opposition to sourcing guidelines. DO NOT take either of us at our word. Take the articles and facts at their word, and remember we are compelled to live and die by Wikipedia rules alone here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be adding them later:
Please evaluate these too and attempt to be accurate. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not tenable. It's the third time you've apparently Google searched "Sol Foundation" and blasted every responsive link into this thread as purported proof of SIGCOV then demanded we prove each one isn't. The San Francisco Standard is addressed in the OP. Word on Fire Catholic Ministries is obviously not RS. Your approach is not conducive to a coherent discussion.
"assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles" This is the third time you've pivoted from discussion into attacking the motivations of individual editors. I would again strongly encourage you to take your concerns to WP:ANI. I'm not personally offended by your ongoing aspersions, they're just derailing to the AfD. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Word on Fire is patently WP:RS to discuss a topic of 'Would Extraterrestrial Intelligence Disprove Christianity?'. Again, as I demonstrated to all above with the La Razon example that you utterly mischaracterized--and that finding is incontrovertible--you're doing something here that is problematic. The article passes notability for the small scale of the article that we have. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your actions, as you seem to be tilting at increasingly tall windmills. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to AfD closer: nominator has NOT rebutted my revealing they misrepresented Popmatters in their table, because that alone with the rest pushes this into basic trivial Notability compliance. That's why it's such a problem to them getting a successful deletion here; at that point the article subject will always be notable going forward. Diff here; there is no possible policy-based counter-argument to diminuize the Popmatters piece or present the site as not fine for WP:RS. This alone resolves the AFD. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have, thus far in this discussion, scattered more than two dozen different sources into the wind including unambiguously non-RS ones like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, and a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers. It's easier for you to take a pass through Google Search and shotgun any URL you find into the discussion than it is for me to offer rebuttal after surrebuttal for why each of these random links don't pass any realistic threshold of sourcing. So, if I stop responding to any particular item, assume it's for no other reason than I simply can't keep up. Chetsford (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for compiling this table. I'm not sure I agree that a source is unreliable for information about the existence and nature of a pseudoscientific UAP organization simply because the source also publishes similar pseudoscience. If anything it would be reason to scrutinize whether the source is truly WP:INDEPENDENT. But I haven't seen any reason to think that The Debrief is unreliable on the question of whether The Sol Foundation exists and is notable in the realm of UAP-related orgs. Also, as 5Q5 pointed out, you seem to have omitted the Hartford Courant and Aleteia citations, both of which seem to pass all three criteria. By my count the Focus, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia citations are sufficient to satisfy WP:SIRS, and the citations to The Debrief, arXiv, and the organization's own website pass the lower bar of being appropriate for inclusion, if not necessarily for establishing notability. The reason my keep vote is weak is that all the significant coverage about this org seems to relate to a single symposium they hosted in 2023, while the repetition of that event in 2024 doesn't seem to have gotten much if any coverage. There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct". But I'm not there yet. -- LWG talk 13:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct"" WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. Either it's notable or it isn't. It's not going to become non-notable in two years. Chetsford (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, but my weak keep vote isn't because I think it's notability might change, it's because I think it's notability is borderline and further information might convince me that it never was notable. -- LWG talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even though I voted keep, the article was a mess. I took a buzz saw to it to clear out the distracting material that will have to go anyway if this closes with keep. -- LWG talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just notification on a relevant matter: Chetsford put in an RfC on the reliability of The Debrief. In the Discussion, they say: "A current and contentious AfD is also presently turning on whether or not this is RS." I would imagine the referenced AfD is this one, (Personal attack removed). Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ben.Gowar: How many times do you have to be warned not to cast aspersions? I am sick and tired of your underhand, snide and generally all-round bad faith questioning of Chetsford's motives. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get the sense that my talk page is a better place for those descriptors. In the case of this AfD, I'm mostly trying to keep interested parties informed of consequential RfCs. Especially if the AfD "turns" on it. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are persistently failing to assume good faith, peristently castining aspersions and then persistently sealioning when called on it. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, it is absolutely this AfD. And I purposely avoided mentioning it in the RSN RfC so as to avoid the possibility of canvassing editors from RSN to this AfD. Insofar as the theory in your edited comment [36] that I'm plotting to get The Debrief deprecated to "turn" this AfD ... that's not possible. The RfC on The Debrief will run at least 30 days. This AfD will close in the next week or two. Chetsford (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either this AfD is "presently turning on whether or not this is RS," or it is not. You have stated that it is. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it obviously is; read the above comments -- its name has been invoked 21 times. But that's an entirely separate matter from the RSN listing. Once again, the RSN discussion will run 30 days. This AfD will close somewhere in the next 5-14 days. Nothing that happens at RSN will have any impact here. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but you seem convinced there are these far-reaching plots converging on certain subject matter. I'm at a loss as to what I can do to convince you that's not the case. Chetsford (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In both cases (AfD and the RfC), the reliability of The Debrief is in question. Interested editors should know. As far as the RSN discussion having no "impact here," that seems improbable given that AfD readers interested in the reliability of The Debrief may indeed look at the RfC (regardless of whether the discussion has run 30 days or not). I suppose there's the possibility of no immediate impact, if no one looks or no one references it (but the transparent nature of Wikipedia seems to render that improbable).
In any case, if the AfD discussion does not result in deletion, then the RfC will probably have an impact on the article later (especially if The Debrief citation remains). So, editors interested in this article should know. Ben.Gowar (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hadn't intended to study this article, but all the vituperative, handwaving ad hominem shouting by Keep enthusiasts convinced me that I should. Having done so, I am satisfied that there are no serious reasons for keeping it, and that Chetsford is correct. Athel cb (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Pretty much agree with what LWG, 5Q5, and Feoffer have said. The article's definitely gotten better since it was nominated (WP:HEY), and sources like Focus Magazine, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia look like they give us enough WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS for WP:NORG. Notability might be on the edge, but it seems good enough for now, and anything else that needs fixing looks WP:SURMOUNTABLE with some regular editing. Deleting it now feels a bit much with the sourcing we've got and the chance to improve it more. Omegamilky (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Of the sources that I find reliable and more coverage than one sentence (Hartford Courant, Aleteia, Focus), the first covers the founding; the second and third cover the organization's conferences in 2023 and 2024, and give a short mention of the organization. This feels WP:TOOSOON for an article, where the subject has not reached the threshold of notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very sympathetic to this argument, we don't need to be covering every RECENT update about the UFO world. But where else could we put the "Roster" of notable people who collaborated together? That's the primary information I'd want readers to be able to reference: who is in which UFO "Supergroup". I know I certainly can't keep it straight without a reference. Feoffer (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it Wikipedia's job to track membership in different UFO organizations? How does this work with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (WP:NOTDATABASE)? For reference, I don't think Wikipedia tracks membership on boards of different corporations and nonprofits, even if that information could be interesting. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the members weren't notable and their association not covered in RSes, it'd be an easy delete. But it's a group of eight notable individuals who have biographical articles and RSes do report on the collaboration between them. Feoffer (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this seems to be a textbook WP:NOTINHERITED argument. Chetsford (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument, per above, is that SIGCOV exists, not that it's inherited. But for those not swayed about a dedicated article, the alternative would seem to be redundantly covering the association in the eight separate bios, which seems... suboptimal.Feoffer (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Suppose there were eight siblings who were independently notable under WP:BIO. Suppose they share a similar Early Life section with the same parentage. Are their parents therefore also notable? I think not. Whether or not this article exists, editors can make a judgment on whether to include association with the Sol Foundation on the other bios.
    Assuming that WP:SIGCOV does not exist (which is how we started this thread, with "where else could we put the "Roster" of notable people who collaborated together"), noting an association across multiple bios is not a problem. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I don't believe an article about an organization like this, who pushes fringe UFO theories, should exist without critical sources. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Unidentified_flying_object#United_States_2. Sourcing does not look particualrly strong. Newsweek probably most independent one. But overall, don't think that this is enough to esatablish notability - which seems borderline. I looked at this a few times and the best I could come up with, besides deleting, was a merge until more coverage by stronger sources for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep this is a matter of considerable public interest. The article is supported by valid references and can continue to be improved. The Sol Foundation exists. There is increasing suspicion that a group of editors on Wikipedia are conspiring to traduce or remove articles on the UFO topic. People are openly stating they suspect intelligence agencies are manipulating Wikipedia and have agents involved in this process to remove information on the subject from the public sphere. Recent edits of the article on Harald Malmgren have been discussed and suspected of CIA involvement. The legitimacy of Wikipedia as a neutral source of information is coming under serious question because, as Orwell once said, "omission is the most effective form of a lie". We must be better, we must allow a range of information which is of interest to the public, if it can be supported by third party sources. There are enormous articles on this site about wiping your bum (literally) and songs that failed to make the final in Eurovision ten years ago. There are thousands of frivolous pages pon this site which are not questioned and yet the UFO topic - which is a matter of Congressional investigation - is continuously brought down and questioned. It is a serious matter.Aetheling1125 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allegedly being a "matter of considerable public interest" or the fact that WP also hosts articles on Eurovision Song Contest songs are not valid Keep reasons, nor is your claim [37] that "there is a clique within Wikipedia seeking to control information". The claim that the CIA is suspect of editing Wikipedia is also not a valid Keep reason. Chetsford (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aetheling1125, I've also argued above that the article should be kept. But there's absolutely no need to look at this as a "high-stakes" conversation, much less to invoke Orwell. The organization may be covered on its own page or it may be covered elsewhere (like the pages of its members or a page about UFO groups). No one is suggesting it be omitted entirely! Feoffer (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MouseCursor or a keyboard? 13:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to Garry Nolan. I agree with most of the source evaluation table (including Chetsford's follow-up comments). I find it rebuts a lot of the keep arguments made before it, and after it I'm not really seeing much of a (policy-based) argument to keep. I think the one point where I differ is that I don't think PopMatters would fall under WP:USERGENERATED. That and Focus seem like the stronger sources. LWG's and Feoffer's argument that The Debrief's reporting could be used to establish notability is...not realistic. The additional sources provided later by Very Polite Person plainly don't meet WP:SIRS, and bringing up a source already covered in the nomination is a pretty obvious example of bludgeoning this discussion. I don't envy the admin who ends up having to control information and awareness using Wikipedia policies wade through all this to figure out consensus. hinnk (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Garry Nolan. I agree with Chetsford's source evaluation table and most of the sources appear to focus on Nolan. The stand-alone page of Nolan already includes references to the Sol Foundation. --Enos733 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I flagged the article with {{more citations needed}}. If the foundation is less than two years old and all it needs is one to three better refs, perhaps give it until the end of the year, then renominate if no change? Seems like the article is destined to be republished per WP:RADP if deleted. 5Q5|✉ 11:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another option could be to draftify the article now and republish when/if more sources become available. -- LWG talk 12:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Garry Nolan. There are plenty of passing mentions to show that it exists, but aside from copypastes of press releases and sensationalism e.g. The DeBrief, it's a WP:NOTJUSTYET situation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:10, 22 May 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=1292682966"