Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 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:deletion sorting|Science|sig=~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science/archive 2

watch

Science

CYC1

CYC1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Cytochrome C1 since Was_a_bee has pointed out the seemingly duplicate nature of these articles. I have a few pointers to add on however: 1. CYC1 [sic] (Cyc short for Cytochrome C) might be intended to point to the gene (Cyc1) rather than the macromolecule/protein itself. 2. Cyc1 is pretty universal, e.g. it's not specific to eukaryotes/mitochondria; it is ubiquitously found in prokaryotes with respiratory pathways. 3. It seems to me that articles like this tend to have the problem of eukaryote/human exceptionalism. You'll find a lot articles that go "XYZ is a protein that, in humans, is encoded by...", and then it turns out some unrelated species of bacterium also has it too (e.g. iron-oxidizing bacteria that have rusticyanin). CheckNineEight (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Biology. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 10:24, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@CheckNineEight: Support the merging of the two articles. Concerning the lead sentence of Gene Wiki articles, as discussed here and here, we have tried to make clear that the scope of these articles encompasses both the protein and gene encoding that protein. Furthermore these articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise:

• <recommended UniProt name> is a protein that in humans is encoded by the <approved HUGO gene symbol> gene.

The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human. Boghog (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Nescience

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Nescience
• Articles for deletion/Nescience (2nd nomination)

Nescience (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)

None of the sources even use the word "nescience" and only online sources are WP:DICDEFs. Shocksingularity (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Science. Shocksingularity (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, badly-written, part-incomprehensible, and wandering off into very specific irrelevancies (it sources the distressing nature of autopsies, but doesn't source some very dubious etymology, which reeks of OR/Fringe stuff). I doubt there is enough sourcing for the concept to be notable (most hits are dictionary-definitions, with a few bloggy things on the side), but even were the concept notable, this article is globally too bad to keep. Elemimele (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete It's filled with POV and also the Wiktionary definition of nescience does not line up with this article's definition. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 11:30, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Rewrite -- This article requires a complete rewrite, that's for sure. That being said, the concept itself is in fact quite notable, with a long and curious history (see for instance here, here, here, and and especially here)--although you wouldn't know it from reading the current article! I'm going to see if I can WP:BEBOLD and redo this thing at some point, although it might mean reversion to more of a stub until it's filled out.

EDIT: My previous volunteering to rewrite was too hasty, and I'm not sure if I'll actually have the opportunity to do it within the week. If no one else will take that on, it might be worth simply deleting, as others have suggested, and waiting for someone to start it again from scratch, but you know, actually good next time. Yitz (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, A restructure, perhaps with links to Cicero's ideas of truth in 5 levels and working with imperfect ideas of reality may be feasible, rather than delete? Timpo (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: has sources for notability and can be improved. I have flagged it for cleanup so that it can be addressed in a copy editing marathon. Rublamb (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  Is there anything in the current version worth saving? I'm happy to withdraw my objection to the subject as a whole being notable, based on Yitzilitt's sources, but if there is nothing in the current article that's appropriate, it should be deleted per TNT, with no prejudice to someone creating a good article. What I would object to is that we leave the current article in mainspace for the next 10 years in hopes someone fixes it. Elemimele (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I had never heard of "nescience", and agree with Elemimele that the current article is incoherent. It would certainly not be rescued by a "copy editing marathon". I looked at "Legal implications", and got a 403 from EU on its mediation rules, possibly because I live in the wrong country. The SOED defines it as simply "absence of knowledge" or "ignorance"; it does look as though at least two of the books cited by Yitz use the term, but they are from the field of "Sociology of science", which for many of us is all we would want to know, thank you. So possibly the article might be replaced by a distinctly less incoherent one. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as an incoherent mess. I see nothing that can be salvaged, and no indication that this topic needs a page of its own rather than being covered in, say, Ignorance. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - The article is worthy of a WP:TNT. Article is patent nonsense, and very little references in the article explicitly mention "nescience". It is also filled to the brim with original research (WP:OR), something which is generally prohibited on Wikipedia. PicoMath (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Preeni Withanage

Preeni Withanage (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)

Notwithstanding that the page was accepted through the AFC process, I don't think this subject is notable. None of the sources in the article seem to provide any significant coverage of her as a person; she is often quoted in her official capacity as a representative of NERD and other organisations. I haven't found anything else of use for meeting WP:GNG; there's this interview, but again that's really about the government policy rather than about her. Nothing suggesting any of the WP:ANYBIO criteria are met. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, Engineering, and Sri Lanka. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Keep. I understand the concern that several sources quote Withanage in her official capacity. However, I think there is enough independent coverage to warrant considering WP:GNG. In particular, the 20 June 2017 Daily Mirror article gives substantial coverage to her analysis and recommendations concerning LNG pricing, infrastructure costs and Sri Lanka's long-term electricity-generation plan, rather than merely mentioning her. There is also an extended 2019 Echelon interview, as well as independent coverage of her petroleum-sector work in The Island, Daily Mirror and Tamil Guardian over multiple years.

  I acknowledge that many of these reports focus on the policies and projects she was involved in rather than providing a conventional biographical profile, but I believe the cumulative independent coverage is substantial enough for the subject to meet GNG. Grove317 (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

R. Gourvitch

R. Gourvitch (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)

Extremely obscure figure (not even first name known) who briefly worked for Marie Curie. Not every intern or associate of Curie is notable enough to meet our notability standards. Renata•3 00:30, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Science, and Lithuania. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 00:44, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Chemistry and Physics. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Did some digging. There are two current sources, one's a book about all the women who worked with Marie Curie (ie not sigcov about R. Gourvitch specifically) and the second is a primary source; looks like OR. Letters exchanged between Marie Curie and someone else about R. Gourvitch. A third potential source came up in my search but it's focused on Madam Curie's lab, seemingly mentioning R. Gourvitch in passing. It's behind a paywall, but the summary implies that. Clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, having not made any particular scientific breakthrough I can find, doesn't meet PROF. And, really, doesn't really meet WP:NBASIC either because of the lack of significant coverage on her specifically. I'm limited here because I do not speak French; open to changing my mind. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

A more direct reference to that French book. It might contain a few pages on Gourvitch, which I could read but my library doesn't have it. Errantios (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

FYI, the article behind paywall says: A la demande de R. Gourvitch, lituanienne, dont on ne sait presque rien, pour venir faire un stage à l'institut du radium après en avoir fini un au laboratoire de physique biologie de Strasbourg, Marie Curie demande explicitement à Bauer des renseignements sur “son instruction, ses capacités et son caractère”, which Google translates to: 'When R. Gourvitch—a Lithuanian about whom almost nothing was known—requested an internship at the Radium Institute following one at the Strasbourg laboratory of biological physics, Marie Curie explicitly asked Bauer for information regarding “her education, her abilities, and her character.”' DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of women associated with Marie Curie and Irène Joliot-Curie, preserving the categories so she can be found. PamD 09:42, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: In connection with Event:Women who worked with Marie Curie, we are trying to provide better coverage of all the women who collaborated with Marie Curie in her Paris laboratory in the early 20th century. I was in two minds about Gourvitch (either redirect or short bio) but it seemed to me that there was sufficient information in Les femmes du laboratoire de Marie Curie to justify a short bio. In my opinion, the fact that the information is taken from a printed book rather than a website should not be an issue. And as mentioned above, the name is also mentioned in similar accounts of the women in Curie's laboratory, even if they are firewalled. (I believe they might be accessible via The Wikipedia Library.) I would be interested to hear other views on this. If it is to be deleted, I would try to provide more info on Gourvitch in List of women associated with Marie Curie and Irène Joliot-Curie.--Ipigott (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect: As there seem to be no more edits on this, as the creator I agree with PamD's proposal on "redirect". I don't know if this can be terminated now or if we have to wait a few more days.--Ipigott (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

• Flow arrangement (via WP:PROD on 17 January 2025)
• Reiner Kümmel (via WP:PROD on 16 January 2025)
• Measure (physics) (via WP:PROD on 7 December 2024)
• Evolution equations in high-energy particle physics (via WP:PROD on 4 December 2024)