Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science/archive

watch

Science

YARP

YARP (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)

Contested proposed deletion. PROD reasoning was "Appears to fail to have been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources." It was removed with the edit sumarry " sources exist, see talk". Those sources seem fine for verification, but they do nothing to establish notability. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 15:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Software. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 15:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT/WP:PRODUCT. I couldn't find independent reliable sources that would show notability which includes the sources on the article itself and the talk page. I didn't check each author for each paper, but there are four references on the article's talk page, and three of them are non-independent even without considering the reliability of the publishers: Giorgio Metta of the Sage reference is scientific director of the Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (the same Metta, G. as in the article's references) and Lorenzo Natale of the 2016 Springer reference is a tenured senior scientist at the same institution, which is an institution that develops the program and owns the copyright for some of the material in the program. One of the authors of the 2014 Springer reference is Silvio Traversaro, who is one of the primary maintainers of the program's GitHub. The fourth reference is the Frontiers reference which appears to be independent, though confidence in the publisher isn't high due to considerations like the WikiProject Academic Journals assessment and an RSN disucssion (as well as non-robotics discussions including Public Health, Neurology, Genetics). The last potential reference in the article itself is this, which is not significant coverage. - Aoidh (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati (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)

Tried to improve the article but I failed to improve it per WP:SNG as well as others. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Medicine, India, and Assam. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources and qualifies for WP:GNG. It have both WP: PRIMARY and WP: SECONDARY sources mentioned as references. It also has historical importance as it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region. -AjayDas (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• I was also not in favor to delete it. But I couldn't find sufficient references to establish the WP:GNG. If you can demonstrate the notability with sourcing, please do it. Otherwise, just a! vote and " it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region." is not helping it anyhow.

Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. This page has poor sources and it does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Srimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences to which it is affiliated. Founded in 1948 it is 75 years atleast clearly a search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: As per my check, I found nothing that can be called in-depth coverage. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. It requires in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 08:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep? Delete? Or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

List of explorations

List of explorations (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)

Appears to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list without clear inclusion criteria. It states that it has the most "important" explorations without referencing who calls them important besides the article creator. Even if notable, it would fall under WP:TNT and is invalid as a navigational list as it does not link to articles specifically about those explorations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, Geography, Spaceflight, and Transportation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, at least in its current form. I have no idea what the ambit is supposed to be - what are "state societies"? Does the author have any idea what they are intending, as that term is linked to the utterly uninformative Complex society? If what is meant is "state-sponsored exploration", then why does it include entires like the hypothetical discovery of Hawaii in late antiquity, or Livingstone's privately funded explorations? No rhyme or reason here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  A society with a state; the opposite of a stateless society. It's a well-defined and widely used term in the social sciences. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah so. That should link to Complex society#States then, I guess? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, edit, and update. A 2001 long-term article, the page lists the first sponsored human expeditions of various locals. The topic is notable, links to various expeditionary pages, and groups these expeditions on one page. The criteria needs to be worded differently, but that's a minor point in the overall scope of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Essays have some who agree and others who disagree. Early Wikipedia articles which have stood the test of 23 years of time should receive more leeway and correction. This one has a very good premise which can be refined and expanded. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Well, on the one hand, this is a very bare-bones list, and seems to have been so for quite a while. There's no real context, and it isn't exactly the best-formatted list ever. That said, I do think that the idea behind it is notable enough. I personally think that it should be rewritten as prose and moved to History of human exploration, but it could also be rewritten as prose and merged with History of human migration (though they are substantially different, especially when it comes to things like oceans or planets). I don't think keeping it as a list is a good idea, even though List of explorers is a good, closely related list, as explorations really should have some explanation and context to them, whereas explorers don't really need that. Ships & Space_(Edits) 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I would agree with Ships&Space. Overhauling should be done, not deletion. Lorstaking (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am not opposed to a rewrite as a prose article. But in the 23 years the article has been around, nothing has been done to fix the problem. I am not sure why you believe it will be fixed in another 23 years. A deletion may encourage a new article to be created that is actually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Common sense, just list any explorations that have their own articles or have articles for the explorers who are notable for making them. Dream Focus 07:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, pretty much per Dream Focus. I would note that a noteworthy exploration need not have its own article to merit inclusion, if it is mentioned and cited in a supertopic article. BD2412 T 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as a low-quality list article duplicating List of explorers. Not opposed to keeping this somewhere outside of mainspace if wanted as a reference for a stand-alone history of exploration article. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm very borderline, but will lean keep because I think the list can be improved. I think it needs to be refocused by being retitled to something like 'List of notable explorations', and it needs a very clear and stringent inclusion criteria that other lists have, for example, List of video games considered the best.

Melmann 07:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)