Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goki Eda (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)

Notability issue. Xegma(talk) 09:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Japan, Singapore, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am concerned that this editor (Bulklana is just copying and pasting uncritically from university websites, on this and other articles.) In this specific case, I don't believe the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and heavily-cited research publications. This needs cleanup to remove or better source the promotional description of his research and make the rest look less like a resume, but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF. I know the article is not perfect, but I am sure it deserves to be on wikipedia Bulklana (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - this editor is currently blocked for undisclosed paid editing/COI. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Normally an Associate Professor is not considered as notable, but he clearly is an exception because of his very high citation record.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - those citing WP:PROF - which of the specific eight criteria do you believe covers this associate professor? David Eppstein mentions WP:PROF#C1 but that subheading/link doesn't exist. Genuine question. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your browser must be broken. It works for me. Criterion 1. The one that applies to someone who has "heavily-cited research publications". As I said in my !vote. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Humphreys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF among others. All sources seem to be to those non-compliant with WP:FRIND. Moreover, quite a few of them are to the subject himself. jps (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Science, and Astronomy. jps (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only case for notability appears to be as a fringe theorist. But per WP:FRINGE and WP:V, we need reliable sources in mainstream sources to provide a neutral mainstream view on these theories, and I found none. If we had enough reliable (mainstream) reviews of his book we could retarget this as an article about the book with a redirect from his name, but I didn't find any of those either. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment YEC isn't "fringe" in any meaningful sense, and Young Earth creationism doesn't label it as such; it's a religious perspective, and WP:FRINGE directly addresses this: For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Thus, comments on his scientific ideas by theologians would be addressing the topic directly and potentially count towards notability, and the search can't stop with scientists. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Being at odds with pretty much all sciences it touches" is a meaningful sense of "fringe". So, yes, YEC is very much fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism... all are at odds with pretty much all the sciences they touch. But they're not fringe because fringe is science absent religion, rather than religious perspectives on scientific topics. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:FRINGE is not science absent religion. I promise you. If you disagree, go ask around and see if there is consensus for your position. jps (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ fringe? The parting of the Red Sea? The direct divine revelation of the Quran or the Book of Mormon? If you think any of them might be, that's an intellectually honest but encyclopedically useless answer in that it would require religious topics be described as if they were not. If none of them are, then how do you articulate an intellectually consistent differentiation between FRINGE and unproven (and arguably unprovable) religious claims? Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Claims that Jesus Christ bodily rose from the dead or that the Red Sea literally split apart as it is depicted in, say, Hollywood blockbusters inasmuch as such phenomena are claimed to have occurred in an empirically verifiable way are fringe claims. That is, they are not verified by the relevant academic scholars in the field and it is only cultists outside of the academic WP:MAINSTREAM who claim otherwise. That it also happens to be an article of faith is irrelevant. When there are empirical claims being made, the domain of interest are those academic subjects which study empirical claims. The "divine revelation of the Qu'ran" is not an empirical claims as far as I can tell. Unless there is some person arguing that such a "divine revelation" was done by some empirical, measurable means. jps (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens: YEC, presented as a scientific theory in the 21st century, is unquestionably fringe. There is nothing in the article in question presenting the subject as a theologian or a fantasy novelist or as any other type of person for whom this might plausibly considered as non-fringe; the article frames his work purely as science, and as such it is fringe. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You keep saying that as if repeating it will make it true. It's a theological stance, derived from a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, trying to present itself as science. It's not; it's religion. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Where in our article do you find any hint that this is religious in nature? And in what sense does having a "theological stance" but "trying to present itself as science" make it anything other than fringe? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Um. Why except for a literal reading of Genesis would anyone look at the world and say "Man, this looks like six days of divine creation six thousand-ish years ago"? Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Louisiana, Michigan, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There just isn't enough to go on here. He wrote one book, Starlight and Time, which did not get sufficient recognition in reliable sources to count as notable by itself. (The CEN Technical Journal cited now is just the old name of the Journal of Creation, i.e., not reliable.) Everything else is even less substantial. I can't see a pass of WP:AUTHOR or any other relevant standard. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic airway-digestive inflammatory disease (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)

There is one source in this very old stub, and that is to a self help book that coined this term. I found it mentioned just a few times by similarly non medical texts, e.g. [1] which is about fitness and diet. Scholar comes up blank. Medical texts do not recognize this. The page lacks WP:MEDRS because they don't exist. At best this is a syndrome and not a disease, but as it stands there is no subject here. The opening claim appears fringe and has been unsourced for 17 years. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Made-up syndrome by one set of authors selling their cure. This text in the article definitely takes it into fringe land CAID can also impact organs beyond the respiratory (breathing) and digestive systems. Heart disease, stroke, infertility, painful headaches and chronic fatigue syndrome may be linked to CAID. Search finds discussion of some connections between some respiratory and GI illnesses, but nothing approaching a defined syndrome or the claims in this article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Textbook nonexistent diagnosis conjured up by alt-med quacks. Not one mention in Google Scholar (!) let alone any reputable database; only mentions on the open web are this article, WP mirrors, and the book by the authors cited in the article (the only reference). User who created the page has 2 edits, both to this article. There is a real diagnosis called CAID (chronic atrial-intestinal dysrhythmia): [2] but it is unrelated. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not for diseases made up one day. XOR'easter (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence that this exists. Mgp28 (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yet another fringe idea trying to get around that we have never published original research. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan Singh Kothari (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)

BLP of an engineer created by a likely meatpuppet. Contains swathes of unsourced claims and no clear claim of notability despite many expansive statements. Mccapra (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Engineering, and Indiana. Mccapra (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no sign of notability. His LinkedIn says "refer wikipedia" for information so this is likely some attempt to promote. Surprised it survived this long. C F A 💬 22:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rajasthan, Louisiana, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think a distinguished undergraduate alumni award [3] is enough and that's all I can find of any note. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete -- within the huge amount of cruft there's the one distinguished alum award which counts towards notability; a second piece of evidence at that level would be enough to push me over the line to keep. If it does do that, I'll probably just burn the current prose and start again. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Presidency of John F. Kennedy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Action Memorandum 235 (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)

Delete or redirect to Presidency of John F. Kennedy as WP:AtD. One of hundreds of executive actions by President John Kennedy, not all of which have notability as evidenced by their WP:LASTING significance of WP:SIGCOV. There are some passing references [4] [5] in books, but nothing that justifies a standalone article or that can't be covered in better context in the redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect There's literally no content or secondary sources here, just the text that could be at Wikisource. Next time try PROD or a bold BLAR and see if anyone objects. Reywas92^Talk 16:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fossil sites (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)

Like the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of archaeological sites by continent and age, this is just too broad for a single list article. Looking at the article, it isn't even clear what a "fossil site" even is. Many of the listed iems are geological formations, which are typically geographically extensive and therefore not "sites". Listing fossil sites by region is already effectively done by categories (e.g Category:Paleontological sites). Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You only list those notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it a valid navigational list, with more information than a category can have, so more useful. Category:Paleontological sites exist so perhaps a rename is in order to list of Paleontological sites. Dream Focus 16:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dream Focus, it's a good navigational list. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All of the arguments from the previous discussion about deleting this list still apply (I can’t seem to track down the archive entry for that deletion discussion, despite having reread it least week? Now, the same search brings me to this current discussion. I think the previous one was in 2017). My summary of that and past talk page discussions:

1. This list is far more useful than a category or set of categories because it has more information than categories can include.
2. This list can be sorted in multiple ways (primary notability, age, continent or country). From a geology perspective, sorting by time period is often more important/interesting than sorting by region. Some people sort by notability or use the tags to find types of sites. If we split it up, we have to maintain lists or categories for all of combinations of sorts and sub-sorts. (And then we get to argue about where to put the divisions between time periods in the past couple million years).
3. We have, in fact, made a solid attempt at defining a fossil site. The reason entire formations are listed is because some formations outcrop at many sites in a general region and listing every outcrop is neither feasible nor particularly useful. This has been discussed in the Talk at some length and is mentioned in the list intro. Ideally such formations would each have a listed type locality or primary site, but no one has yet done the research to add those to every previously listed formation. (Sometimes these localities are already in the primary article for a formation, but no one has yet added them here.)
4. If we actually apply the inclusion criteria discussed in Talk to delete list entries (rather than just to new additions) the list will get tidier. Deleting the list itself would remove a valuable and popular navigational tool.

Elriana (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And mention only those that are notable. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It looks like this will be kept (fine with me), but it needs to be cleaned up. I'll say more on the article talk page. - Donald Albury 23:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that cleanup is warranted, but not deletion. Azuredivay (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8^[contribs] 10:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to delete, three explicit "keeps", and a comment that "cleanup is warranted, but not deletion". How strong do you think consensus has to be? Donald Albury 16:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I didn't think my !vote would be needed here. As noted above, I started a discussion about how to improve the list after the third "Keep". - Donald Albury 16:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep However the list is huge, I feel the article needs better division. I do suggest to split the table up per continents. Govvy (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. given sources brought up here and added to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BioSense (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:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV in secondary or tertiary sources to establish independent notability. A couple passing, definitional, mentions in books, but not enough for this encyclopedia. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral WP:SIGCOV might apply. I found some mentions that are more-than-passing-mentions that are outside of cdc.gov, including this news article https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/cdc-realign-biosense-focus-most-populous-cities-0 and this GAO report https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-100.pdf. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first I would classify as WP:ROUTINE of budget requests. To the second, one GAO report in 25 years would speak to its non-notability. Longhornsg (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this page was up for deletion. I would recommend you keep it. I think there are actually many articles on this topic as a major CDC initiative for syndromic surveillance including in depth reviews for instance several:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15714629/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28692386/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16177704/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16177687/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19635001/

Examples of use in literature

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21128815/

I think probably less likely to receive mention in popular press but certainly not in academic press. I think the nomination as passing mentions would be disingenuous most the articles discuss the system extensively. All are published in reputable journals for the field.

in particular popular medical articles

e.g. JAMA https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/183185

and Lancet infectious disease also have covered issues with the program

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(06)70485-6/abstract Dotingacademic (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also in some popular media; but rarely

E.g.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/04/syndromic-surveillance-useful-to-track-pandemics-like-covid-19.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114186869834793251

Or

Judith Graham Ronald Kotulak, T. staff reporters. (2004). Bioterror detectors go high-tech ; Research focuses on earlier warning: Chicago Final Edition. Chicago Tribune available through proquest. Dotingacademic (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also in the Scientist Biosense or Biononsense,

https://www.proquest.com/docview/200056066

Describes the shortcomings - misflagged outbreaks etc. Dotingacademic (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more closure opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the company per above comments has received some media coverage. Might be notable and some new sources might be added too. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources presented above. There do seem to be a lot of sources directly focusing on this initiative in depth. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.