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 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:

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

watch

Science

Gino Martini

Gino Martini (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've been unable to find much information regarding him that indicates notability and shows he passes WP:GNG due to him also appearing to fail WP:NACADEMIC, though I don't feel exactly experienced enough in this subject to make that assessment. See Talk:Gino Martini#Notability concern for previous discussion. I found that Martini was the president of the European Industrial Pharmacists Group [1], but given that it does not even have a Wikipedia page it does not appear to be particularly prestigious. Martini's best claim of notability appears to be his work with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, but it does not appear to me to be enough. Raskuly 🐰 19:21, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Raskuly 🐰 19:21, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep per NACADEMIC criteria 6 - Chief Pharmaceutical Scientist of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is a highest-level post at a major academic society Jishara (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't find anything on the site of the Royal College of Pharmacy (formerly Royal Pharmaceutical Society) to suggest that he did anything notable in that capacity. No significant Google Scholar profile. Athel cb (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

List of museums and colleges with mastodon fossils on display

List of museums and colleges with mastodon fossils on display (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, it's essentially science based WP:CRUFT. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 11:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and Lists. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 11:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per MOS:LISTPURP. Mastadon fossils are something many people will be interested in, particularly school kids, so I do not believe this is WP:CRUFT. I don't think there is any question that the museums are notable, and almost all seem to be sourced. I don't see a strong reason to delete this, it is primarily a navigation list.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  The museums are notable, I never claimed otherwise. I just don't think the list itself is notable, A museum having a mastodon fossil is not a defining feature in-and-of-itself hence its WP:CRUFT to collate this as a list. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 12:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - agree w/ above that this looks like an information or navigation list to me (is structured, most entries linked), so NLIST wouldn't need to be met (grouping seems to fail it per quick Ggl query), rather only usefulness to readers :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Valid navigational and informational list. The references clearly show news coverage for each location for having this. Dream Focus 15:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep — I agreee with the reasons given by others above. —Wordbuilder (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Unary coding

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Unary coding
• Articles for deletion/Unary coding (2nd nomination)

Unary coding (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 unary numeral system because it is listed as another term for the same thing in the article and appears to be such. Knowswheretheirtowelis (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Mathematics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose - The word 'code' implies symbols. Assigning a numeric value to the symbols is a subset of language. A character device is the foundation of computing which implies linguistic symbols that may or may not have numerical values but need to be read and written. Unbounded code also imply unbounded set of symbols. Base 10 or base 26 or base 256 can result in a limited code set that cannot accommodate multiple languages. 97d07dad-8ddb-4b7a-ab17-f4d4e7ca376f (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. The use of a trailing 0 in unary coding makes it have significantly different properties, in terms of coding theory, from unary numerals. In particular, unary coding forms a prefix code but unary numerals do not form a valid code at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Technology Park Bentley

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Technology Park Bentley
• Articles for deletion/Technology Park Bentley (2nd nomination)

Technology Park Bentley (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)

Majority original research and unsourced info article for a run-in-the-mill park. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, and Australia. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It isn’t a “run-in-the-mill park”. If the article was properly written and sourced, it wouldn’t be considered for deletion. Elrondil (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: the first nomination, which was more-or-less based on the same or similar concerns, only closed less than three weeks ago with "no consensus". The standard waiting period before renomination in this scenario is normally two months. (No opinion on the article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hurricane Brenda (1973)

Hurricane Brenda (1973) (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 1973 Atlantic hurricane season because it, along with the season's other sub-articles, are all rather short, and could be merged into the season article. Check out Draft:1973 Atlantic hurricane season for what a merge would look like.

I also propose to merge

• Tropical Storm Christine (1973) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tropical Storm Delia (1973) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tropical Storm Gilda (1973) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ♫

Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science-related AfD discussions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Strong Opposition to Merging: None of these pages are suitable for merger. They were each significant storms, and all are Good Article rated. They are also too long to merge without loosing major details. Your proposed omnibus article is clunky, and to include all of the information it should would need significant expansion, which would put it in violation of WP:Size. The way it is now is better for these, and other reasons. Foxtrot620 (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

How are any of these significant storms? None of them have any lasting coverage. As shown in the theoretical season article, there isn't too much detail to merge. Each of the sub-articles have a lot of preparations (which are routine), and use a lot of words to not say a lot. Even though they are good articles, that doesn't mean they can't be merged. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose merge I see what the nominator means to a point, but each of the individual pages meets the coverage standard to stand alone. The detail in the pages isn't too intricate or too passing and interested people would be served well by both the omnibus as it exists and the extra detail in the separate pages. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dizzycheekchewer: sorry what do you mean by "the omnibus"? Do you mean the season article? The 1973 Atlantic hurricane season is currently only 4,043 words. So the extra detail constitutes more of a content fork. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I mean the season article. I mean that right now, the detail in the articles isn't too much or too little and a merge would, theoretically either get rid of detail that adds value and/or overburden the season article. The current divide works best, imo. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dizzycheekchewer: but if you see the draft for what it would look like, such a merger would not overburden the season article, it's still a reasonable size. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I think that version loses some of the detail from e.g. the Brenda article that is a) useful and b) not overdone in that specific context. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry to keep pushing, but what information in the Brenda article is useful that did not appear in the theoretical merged article? One of the only things I excluded was Brenda's apparent high winds and rainfall along the northern Yucatan, which is not backed up by the available sources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Caribbean, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Louisiana and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support Gilda | Neutral Brenda, Christine, and Delia. Except for Christine, all systems are below my personal threshold but, except for Gilda, not by a terrible amount especially for an event that happened over half a century ago. Gilda should have done something to Cuba but between the storm happening over half a century ago in another country with oppressive media restrictions and speaking another language, I do not know to get that information. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Even Spanish sources merely mention Gilda as having affected Cuba, but without any detail. I checked the first few pages of Google searches for [Tormenta Tropical Gilda 1973 Cuba] and didn't have any luck. Also for reference, Brenda and Delia are among [shortest good articles]. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose merging any, per Foxtrot620 and Dizzycheekchewer. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Asdfjrjjj: would you mind expanding your rationale? As I said, there isn't much content to merge in all of these articles, so please check out what a proposed merger would look like. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

To editor Hurricanehink: Fs! they all seem notable to me, and so warrant their own, detailed articles. Merged article looks pretty good!, but is less detailed than individual articles (naturally). Would prefer if merged article only has an overview of each system, w/ a link to main article for further details, and generally don't think we've gotta worry so much abt articles' short size (as long as they're not stubs, w/c these don't seem to be to me :) - rn, would really only change !vote if any failed WP:GNG or WP:SNG, but none seem to! - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Merge for Christine and Gilda—Neutral for Brenda and Delia — Christine is a routine storm, easy merge. Even though Gilda seems to be a significant storm it’s extremely difficult to find information on Latin American storms outside of Mexico during this time period so it’s going to have to be a merge. Brenda and Delia may have room for expansion though, a quick search of Newspapers.com shows a good amount of results for those queries, I could look into whether those results come up with anything actually worth adding to the article but for now my stance will be Neutral for Brenda and Delia.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Agnieszka Ruppert

Agnieszka Ruppert (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)

One of many pages of academics at Łódź University of Technology recently created directly in main. With a Scopus h-factor of 27 & 3.6K cites the case for NPROF is weak. No significant awards. Like other pages from the same editor, probable COI and possible UPE. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Chemistry, and Poland. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing here that adds up to notability. Athel cb (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. The article will remain on pl wiki which is more inclusive to academics. I don't have a strong opinion on the merits of keeping it here and I concur the sourcing is not strong enough to argue for inclusion due to the lack of similar inclusive rulings (at WP:NPROF) as on pl wiki (where habilitation is sufficient). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

North Korea's rejection of denuclearization in 2026

North Korea's rejection of denuclearization in 2026 (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 North Korea and weapons of mass destruction because this article could largely just be a few sentences there. Not separately notable. grapesurgeon (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Science, Korea, North Korea, and Russia. grapesurgeon (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOPAGE HerrHeulsuse (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support merging for reasons stated. NPguy (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge: The perennial rejection of nuclear disarmament is not news. The routine rantings of a despot regime aren't news, nor are the bizarre need for G7 to ring the denculearization bell every 20 seconds, as if anyone rational isn't already on board. Foxtrot620 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Support per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I support merging and redirecting to North Korea and weapons of mass destruction#2026 per nominator's rationale. Previous rejection do not have their own article. I will add content to redirect goal soon. TCU9999 (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge: this isn't even news. The Account 2 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge This is an ongoing phenomenon and have far more high level rejections in the past. If this is an article every year could be justified in having an article about rejection. WP:NOTNEWS as said previously. AadamentAardvark (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Plane wave tube

Plane wave tube (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)

Totally unsourced. I have tried restoring the previous redirect and been reverted. If another redirect is appropriate, editors can feel free to suggest it. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 09:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 09:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Based on a quick search I do not see sufficient notability. The claim by Kvng that the topic is notable does not appear to be supported by adequate sources. In any case, restoring an unsourced page is not a good way to build Wikipedia, per WP:BURDEN it was their responsibility to prove their claim. Citing WP:DEMOLISH to defend an article that has been unsourced for 17 years does not make sense to me. From this audio standard the page content is not that accurate, so I dont see the redirect or a merge as a great ATD. If there is a major WP:HEY rewrite then I might reconsider my vote.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - Multiple reliable sources found in Books search: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. We prefer to improve rather than delete articles on notable topics. If no one immediately steps up to make the improvements, do we still delete? How long do we wait? WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Kvng, per policy in WP:BURDEN, if you revert a PROD/Redirect it is up to you to repair the problem, particularly for an unsourced article. In addition, if nobody has repaired the problem in 17 years then IMHO the improvements must be made immediately. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've seen this editing pattern and heard this argument before. Maybe it will prevail this time, we'll see. I appreciate the desire to improve the encyclopedia that I assume is behind it, sweeping the cobwebs out of corners. I don't appreciate the confrontational approach as it is not conducive to the collaboration that I believe is fundamental to the success of Wikipedia. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  What's confrontational? You made an action against a PROD. It's either no action or it will go to AfD. – The Grid (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  The confrontation is deleting the material and objecting to anyone restoring it per BURDEN. Less confrontational would be to fix the problem, alert an associated wikiproject or let it slide. ~Kvng (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not convinced by the WP:BURDEN argument; while I personally prefer those wanting to keep an article to improve it during an AfD, there is no requirement to do so. More discussion is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep - per sources provided, it definitely meets notability Jishara (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment a clarification wrt Ritchie333's comment about WP:BURDEN and the history.

1. Bearian redirected the article on June 24th 2026 since it had been tagged as unreferenced since 2019.
2. Kvng reverted this on June 29th, but did not add any sources or talk page explanation.
3. Bearian proceeded to PROD it as unreferenced for 17 years after doing a WP:BEFORE that did not indicate SIGCOV (see PROD edit comments).
4. Mariamnei decided to act on the PROD by restoring the earlier redirect. on June 30th.
5. On July 3rd Kvng again removed the redirect, again without producing any sources or attempts on the talk page to reach concensus.
6. Then on July 6th Mariamnei decided to AfD the page.

I made the WP:BURDEN point in response to the AfD, since Kvng had twice restored an unsourced article. I also stated that if someone did a standard WP:HEY rescue I would reconsider my vote. At that stage a very experienced admin and two experienced NPP had indicated major issues with the page.

If Kvng edits the page, as is standard, and does a WP:HEY rescue then a reappraisal is appropriate. The revised page needs to respond to the criticism (to quote Bearian's argument in the PROD) Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources; only a handful of passing mentions on Google Books. Appears to be original research..

One of the sources that Kvng has argued provides SIGCOV (3) is a homework problem; 1-2, 4 and 6 are short mentions; 5 is better so might count towards WP:42. Per policy, 3 or more detailed descriptions are required for WP:42, and as yet I do not see them; I have seen nothing that convinces me that Bearian was wrong in his WP:BEFORE. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect should be restored. Thanks for the pings. I rescue literally dozens of articles every month, month after month. After a Before Search, sometimes I will give up, after not seeing significant coverage, as in this case. Arguably, some random person could create a stub from such sourcing, and I hate to admit it, but I have done so a few times recently. However, this particular subject is a highly technical STEM topic, and in cases like this, sometimes it's just better to redirect. Call me weak, but don't call me lazy, and don't call me late for dinner. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  I reverted the redirect because the topic is not mentioned in Anechoic chamber. I'm OK with a merge if consensus says this is not an independently notable topic. But, there are typically objections to merging unsourced material. I still think the best outcome is to keep and then improve the article. ~Kvng (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  Kvng, the unsourced page being discussed describes a plane wave tube as an anechoic chamber and a tube, so to me the redirect makes complete sense. In terms of keep and then improve you have not provided any evidence, or made any edits to the page that prove the topic is notable. To quote from the policy, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material'. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  Read the lead, it is not an anechoic chamber, it is a tube-shaped chamber for making low-frequency acoustic measurements because these are not so easy to do in an anechoic chamber. ~Kvng (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:48, 30 July 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)