Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Shortcuts

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:

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.
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

Jim Stauffer

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

I propose redirecting because the content in this article is virtually identical to the content in Pacific Marine Mammal Center. Furthermore, the subject of this article is not notable outside of his work with the Pacific Marine Mammal Center. Gb321 (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and California. Gb321 (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Heliomonadida

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

I propose merging this article with Granofilosea because it is not used in the hierarchy as in Adl et al., 2019, and it is rarely mentioned in protistology works. Jako96 (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Organisms. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 17:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Arignar Anna Government Arts and Science College, Karaikal

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Deleteas it fails WP:NSCHOOL, has no SIGCOV or notability. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 02:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Schools, and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Redirect to Pondicherry University#List of affiliated colleges, where it's listed, as an ATD-R. Found nothing with SIGCOV in additional searches to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 03:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Merrelyn Emery

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

Not seeing how this passes WP:NPROF. Lots of puffery added by a WP:COI editor might make it seem that way, but there's nothing there there. Could possibly be merged/redirected to Fred Emery as an alternative. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

You are probably referring to me, as I was the one who wrote the first version back in 2021. I had no CoI back then at all, just a wish for her work to be noticed and for her page not to be redirected to her partner's page, as it did back then, which is an insult to a seasoned researcher and writer as she is.

Since then, I have worked with her, and when I wanted to update the page and create a more balanced piece (remove what you may think of as "puffery") I added the CoI and asked for approval of the update. I have now deleted it as I see no point in trying to get that approved, which proved to be right based on your request to even delete the whole page.

I'm not alone in arguing for having this page on Wikipedia and hope some will join the discussion. Since your request for deletion may have been initiated by my Draft:Open systems theory proposal and your opposition to that, I will probably not be able to sway you. In the meantime, I will update the page as planned to make it more representative, as I do agree that it is not there yet. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

The page has been updated with more sources, and promotional language has been removed. This should make the WP:NPROF clearance more obvious. Also, Google Scholar shows sustained citation across the organisational development and action research literature:

Participative Design for Participative Democracy (1989, ≈274 citations),
Searching (1999, ≈190),
"The current version of Emery's open systems theory" in Systemic Practice and Action Research (2000, ≈165),
A Choice of Futures (with F. Emery, 1976, ≈156),
Barton, Emery, Flood and Selsky (2004) in Systemic Practice and Action Research (≈115),
"The search conference: A powerful method for planning organizational change and community action" (with Purser, 1996, =694).

Six works over 100 citations in a small specialist field. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I did the updates to the page, which probably conflict with the WP:COI process, but I hope that is OK since there is an AfD, you are involved and there is full disclosure about my CoI and the ongoing AfC. More than happy to revert and create a draft page instead. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep: authors of widely recognized concepts, both by public and by scientific community, are generally considered to be notable. There were concerns about promotional language of the article; the overly promotional language has since been removed. Jean Mélenchon (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Where is the secondary sourcing to establish this as a widely recognized concept by both the public and scientific community? Where is sourcing establishing the subject's role in this? Were you canvassed to be here? Sulfurboy (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Sorry for butting in here, but since you asked for secondary sourcing, there are loads of its uses around the world (like Search Conferences and organisational redesigns using the Participative Design Workshops), especially in Australia and the US. A good source is this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1879091.The_Self_Managing_Organization_ In addition to the citations mentioned above from Google Scholar. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This does not demonstrate significant recognition, at all. In fact, an h-index of 7 would demonstrate the exact opposite. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Scopus has a mere 17 of her articles. Not sure which as they are hidden behind a wall. She has authored or coauthored at least ten books, eight edited books, 35 book chapters, 60 journal articles, and contributed 29 institutional research reports, including several national studies. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect back to Fred Emery. On Scopus I am not seeing anywhere close to the citations claimed above, with just 196 citations total and an h-index of 7. I'm also not seeing the significant recognition of either "open systems theory" or M. Emery as its co-developer needed for a pass of C1. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Why do you use Scopus? It has only 17 of her articles. See the numbers I've given above for her production and the number of citations on Google Scholar. Amazing numbers for a women in science, I should think, Trond Hjorteland (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Thjortel @BenAveling, because NPROF advises to use Scopus or WoS and against using Google Scholar for citation counts (bolding mine): The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Science and Scopus. ...
A caution about Google Scholar: ... For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles. ... In the other direction, GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources.[2] It has also been criticized for not vetting journals and including predatory journals.[3] Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only.
If you can find multiple peer-reviewed academic reviews of multiple of her solo-authored books, that would be more helpful for a NAUTHOR pass.
Amazing numbers for a women in science, I should think, is staggeringly sexist and patronizing. Just wow. JoelleJay (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm very aware that Wikipedia sets the bar higher for female academics than male academics. I think 'multiple peer-reviewed academic reviews of multiple books' is a bar that would rule out most academics. And, as per Wikipedia:NPROF, Google Scholar as prone to undercounting as overcounting, and can be used as a rough guide. Google Scholar is particularly compromised in this case because she doesn't have an account, which would have been helpful. That said, the top 5 results do seem to be the right M Emery, and have between 115 and 274 citations each, according to Google Scholar. The only journal among those five results is Systemic Practice and Action Research, which has an impact factor of 1.8. Springer report 56 and 35 citations for those two articles, about 1/3 of what Google Scholar reports. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. Looking through Google Scholar, a lot of those citations come from the same two journals, Systems Research and Behavioral Science and Systemic Practice and Action Research, which possibly suggests significant impact but only in a very small field. All up, it's not nothing, this is not a field I'm familiar with, and it's tricky to compare impact factors between different disciplines. But. Compared to what I'm used to, and considering that this is over 20+ years, I can't build an argument for notability on citations. On the other hand, you could say much the same about Fred Emery's citation record if you only rely on Scopus Preview - it (wrongly) rates his h-number as being lower than hers. Citation count isn't everything. Her contribution to Open systems theory does seem significant. But is OST significant? I'm unsure that it demonstrably is. If we could quantify her contribution to Participative Design Workshop, that might be sufficient. Can we? Ben Aveling 22:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think we can. She has not only worked on theory and done action research, but she has also helped numerous companies in Australia and Canada, in particular, in their transition to self-managing organisations. The PDW is one area where her contributions have been substantial, the other being the Search Conferences that have been the topic of her most well-known book and have been used a lot around the world, even here in Norway. It has also inspired other techniques like Weisbord's Future Search (https://futuresearch.net/about/history/).

Generally, I think C7 should be an equally important criterion for keeping as C1. Documented applications of Emery's methods include large-scale regional planning by the U.S. Forest Service (Alvarez & Emery, SPAR 13(5), 2000); Project Australia national consultations; Torres Strait Islands community planning (Paton & Emery, Journal for Quality and Participation 19(5), 1996); and workplace mental health (de Guerre, Emery, Aughton & Trull, SPAR 21(8), 2008). NPROF is disjunctive. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Multiple empirical studies have determined Wikipedia does not set a higher bar for women academics (a recent study even found the opposite for women biologists). This is something I have also noticed across the NPROF AfDs where I have calculated the subject's senior coauthors' citation metrics to estimate the field medians.
Yes, "multiple peer-reviewed academic reviews of multiple books" is supposed to rule out the vast majority of academics, because articles should be about highly impactful scholars and not the average professor. However, if Emery's books are as influential as claimed, it is likely that sufficient reviews exist and searching for those would be the best use of keep !voters' time.
The problem with the GS citations, as noted at NPROF, is that they are inflated by citations in non-academic or non-indexed/non-RS academic sources.
In my experience, trying to evaluate the impact of the subject's contributions to a topic, and the significance of the topic itself, in the absence of reliable citation counts is very difficult and rarely attempted at AfD. Fred Emery likely has escaped deletion attention due to his apparent pass of ANYBIO #2, although given he worked at the university that prepared his biography I don't think that should be given much consideration. JoelleJay (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
A couple of peer reviews for her books have been added to the page, by me and one other. For papers I assume the journals have covered that process. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep: Just got word that the Australian National University is preparing a biographical piece for publication on their website. Ought to be a decent sign of the importance of her work.

Trond Hjorteland (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Under what policy would a possible piece like this warrant a keep? This is WP:CRYSTAL at best. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

ANU is definitely not an independent source, so such a piece would not be acceptable as GNG coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep but rewrite to make clearer her own contributions, rather than leading by saying she is known for working with someone else. It's hard to be sure what her h-index would be, but FWIW, it's going to be more than 7. See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Merrelyn+Emery Ben Aveling 20:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
An extra point I would like to bring up concerns the suggestion to use WP:REDIRECT to Fred Emery (psychologist). It calls for targets that contain the information sought. Fred Emery's article does not document Merrelyn Emery's independent contributions — the two-stage model of active adaptation, her work on Participative Design for Participative Democracy (1993), the Search Conference monograph (Searching, John Benjamins, 1999), or the statistical methods (Alvarez & Emery, SPAR 13(5), 2000). A redirect would leave readers at a target that does not contain the material. Also, a redirect to Fred Emery here would fit a pattern noted in Wikipedia's coverage of women in science — redirecting the woman scholar to her male partner's article rather than maintaining a standalone biography. This concern is especially relevant where the target article does not contain the redirected subject's independent contributions. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Synthetic colorant

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

See discussion below. The article is some student creation that duplicates mature, well-curated articles on dye and pigment. The proposal is that this article would disappear and the little useful or unique convent would be transferred to dye and pigment.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Chemistry, and Technology. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I was prepared to scream "delete," but this article seems distinct enough from dye and pigment to warrant its own article. However, it needs a lot of work. It needs a massive amount of trimming, and I think a change of title to History of synthetic dyes or something similar would be appropriate, as the content is almost entirely a survey of the history of synthetic "colorants". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment "The discussion below" is here with a concurrent merge discussion. – The Grid (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Rajiv Gandhi Arts and Science College

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Education, Schools, Science, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Redirect to Pondicherry University#List of affiliated colleges, where it's listed, as an ATD-R. Found nothing with SIGCOV in additional searches to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Annai Vailankanni Arts and Science College, Thanjavur

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Education, Schools, Science, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Redirect to Bharathidasan University#Affiliated colleges, where it's listed, as an ATD-R. Additional searches didn't yield anything with SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Shahin Khalilli

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

Article lacking in-depth secondary source coverage to meet WP:NBIO. Sources only about book publications and the books themselves. Yousiphh (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Social science, and Azerbaijan. Yousiphh (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment The books are enough for a pass of NAUTHOR if there are some reviews of them. Unfortunately the only source that indicates it is a review, [7], leads somewhere else. The sourcing is bad, but most of the text comes from [1] so is "OK". I am not sure here, the language is a barrier to my finding reviews, maybe someone can do better in which case it will be a keep.
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

2011 Pocahontas tornado

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

I propose to delete because this article is poorly sourced, with some paragraphs being completely unsourced, is poorly written (with some likely assistance from a LLM), and the tornado itself fails #1, #2, #3, and #5 of the WP:NTORNADO criteria, as it has no significant coverage, no lasting coverage, had no casualties, and did not significantly damage a town. All the content in this article is better covered by April 2011 Iowa tornadoes. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science-related AfD discussions. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Support per above. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 13:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I am really baffled by this. Sharkeston (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Iowa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Support — This article is not properly cited and fails against many of the outlined policies for Wikipedia articles. This is yet another example of this user abusing their power to move articles to the main space. Sobriquetical (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Heavy Support Quincy Gordon (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Support per above ~2026-43385-91 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Support - Per above, doesn't meet WP:NTORNADO. Also the existence of this article in the first place baffles me, as there is not only a tornado outbreak article about this event, but there is also a a in-depth article about the tornado family's impacts. There is no reason for a third article to exist, let alone one that is poorly sourced. TornadoEF4 (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Support per above. Also, note the user is working on several tornado and tornado-related articles and should be advised on how to pivot to being productive instead of being disruptive. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete Likely LLM-generated, including emotionally charged language and superficial analysis, e.g.: The 2011 Pocahontas tornado left a prominent legacy within the meteorological community as a definitive case study in complex multi-vortex supercell behavior, specifically regarding the mechanics of satellite tornadoes out-rating their primary parent systems. and The people who lived in the house on one of these farms were very lucky. Other articles by the same user show signs of LLM-generated content as well, and all were created mostly in one go with no sources initially. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete. Doesn't make NTORNADO. Khalitate (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Plasma-powered cannon

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

Page on a hypothetical cannon with only one source which is a self-published book. Page was recently PROD & PROD2 which was contested without any explanation as to why. We already have more detailed pages (see Plasma cannon). I don't see much here that should be saved that is not already better covered in one of the disambiguation pages. Fails notability and sourcing plus being redundant. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Science, Engineering, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Courtesy pings of @Swatjester, @Bearian, @Glane23 and @Graeme Bartlett; it is not clear (to me) who challenged the PROD. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - everybody knows that we have never published original research. I'm not opposed to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete -- As the person who PROD'd it. I don't think the subject is significantly notable under another name either, but that can be written as a new article if that can meet inclusion criteria, though I suspect that is going to run into fringe science issues as this is not a real thing that actually exists as described. It also doesn't need a redirect from this term as there are zero reliable sources from what I can find linking the two terms, so even a redirect would be inappropriate.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment There was a reason for prod reversal given by @Plasma Gun Nut: here: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Plasma-powered cannon with three references. I have not evaluated the references or the requestor, but we should give the requestor a chance to prove notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
OK, if that link had been in the edit summary I might have held on the AfD. Plasma Gun Nut will have to both edit the page to improve it, and indicate why this page should survive when there are already pages such as Plasma weapon, Plasma railgun, MARAUDER, Electrothermal-chemical technology (and several SciFi pages). I am willing to listen. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep Hello it's me, the user who requested undeletion. Sorry for poor communication, I am new to Wikipedia and not familiar with all the etiquette, but I will try my best.

As I also acknowledged in my undeletion request, the article is indeed in a very poor state right now, starting with the name, which in my view should be "electro-thermal gun" or something similar, as that is the most commonly used name in the scientific and technical literature on the subject. "Cannon" would refer to large-caliber versions and "plasma-powered" is a functionally descriptive name, but is not commonly encountered in the literature, but it does feature in amateur project descriptions like this one so I think keeping the link to the old name intact is useful for some audiences.

Given the issue with the name, I would Move the article, but I don't have the ability to do that yet since my account is so new.

As for noteworthyness, I think the strongest argument is that the DDTC considers the technology important enough to explicitly regulate it under ITAR category II paragraph (d) by name. If electro-thermal guns were "fringe science", as @Swatjester fears, why would the government bother regulating the technology?

If the article is kept, I will rework it to try and build out a proper timeline of the development of the technology and reference it with peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject such as these two ([1],[2]) and technical references such as the General Dynamics and Rheinmetall patents.

Thanks for tagging me @Graeme Bartlett! Plasma Gun Nut (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Ah, what I forgot to argue: The technology is functionally dissimilar from railguns such as MARAUDER, not having rails. It is also dissimilar from DEWs included under Plasma Cannon, as it doesn't fire plasma, only using it as a working medium. It sits somewhere between Railguns, having the electric power supply in common with them and ETC guns, sharing the gun bore with plasma injector/generator with them, but without the chemical energy supply. Plasma Gun Nut (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

@Plasma Gun Nut, if I understand your comment correctly, your approach would fall under what we call WP:TNT, i.e. Blow it up and start again with a different name. There is nothing magic about existing articles, and a lot can be said for not keeping poor ones.

Creating a new article or a major rewrite and expansion of an old one is not simple, particularly if you are not used to Wikipedia. For instance, that the DDTC page you cite mentions "plasma" once in IIe is not an extensive enough discussion to pass the Wikipedia notability criteria. It is worth reading WP:VNOTT and WP:42. These are policies decided by debates involving hundreds of editors over the years.

I think it would be a good idea for you to draft a new page using your WP:Sandbox. I suspect this will take you weeks. Most of the other editors on this page are very busy, so may not be able to help you. I don't know the topic enough to write, but would be willing to comment on your draft if you ping me. Once it is in good enough shape you could either submit it via WP:AfC (and ping the people here in case they will review it), or maybe move it to main if you have done some useful edits on other pages.

If you can rewrite the existing page in a few days then it would not be deleted using what is called the WP:HEY exception. I suspect this may be very hard to do. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Ok, thanks for your reply, I have read the relevant guidelines on notability now. Sorry for wasting your time, but I have one more question. Do you think a review/summary of the technical progress like this could count as secondary literature? I don't think the technology has been discussed much outside of technical circles except in amateur projects. Other secondary literature in the form of summaries and reports exist, like this, but they often mix electrothermal (ET) and other technologies, including electromagnetic (EM) and electrothermal-chemical (ETC) together.

Re: timeline. I think I could write a passable article over the weekend but yeah, it's questionable whether that's worth it especially if I don't end up including much of the existing article. Another option is to write a seperate chapter in the ETC page, since they are related and historically connected to the point that the american literature doesn't always seperate them cleanly. Plasma Gun Nut (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Neither is really a good secondary source. The way I judged that is by looking at both how many times they were cited, and how many references they had. From what I can see the first has been cited twice, the second once. Neither really indicates that the topic is notable. I went a little further and did a search using Web of Science. I found DOI 10.1109/20.559970 but that has only been cited 30 times and has 6 references, neither of which are good numbers. (I had a look at the Electrothermal-chemical technology page and the references there are also not that great for demonstrating notability.)

Sorry, but I think you need to do much more digging to find well-cited reviews which have many references and can act as secondary sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Hm, okay. Maybe the notability hurdle is higher than what the topic can meet. Plasma Gun Nut (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Recurrence Index

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

I propose merging or redirecting to CAPP-Seq#Selector design because this concept does not seem to be notable on its own. I found other articles which cite the source used in this article but the concept does not seem independently notable for an article. SuperCode111 (talk to me!) 23:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Biology. SuperCode111 (talk to me!) 23:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Dual fluid reactor

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

Sources do not show that the subject is notable. Most of the sources either do not mention the DFR or are from the DFR's website. The only reliable source here as far as I can tell is the article from The New Times. The only other source that might be reliable here is the one from ruhrkultour.de but I cannot figure out what it actually is, but it appears to be not mentioned in any reliable independent sources, so I suspect ruhrkultour.de is not a reliable source.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 15:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep Plenty of sources now. Definitely a notable project.

For a topic to be notable, there must be multiple reliable, secondary, and independent sources that give in-depth coverage of the subject. This article only shows the existence of one such source (the one from The New Times). Can you provide more such sources?

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 13:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Unary coding

AfDs for this article:

(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)reply

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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Why could that not just be explained in the article if a merge were to be performed? –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 15:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Oppose per mathematical reasons given by David Eppstein. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Technology Park Bentley

AfDs for this article:

(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)reply

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)reply

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)reply

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)reply
Indeed, isn't this enough for a speedy keep? IgelRM (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep part of the overall site was established in 1900 is heritage listed https://inherit.dplh.wa.gov.au/Public/Search/PlaceNoSearch?placeNo=02021 and was within the original for the creation of the forerunner to Curtin University. The other part appended to park was WA Government Deoartment of Agriculture land in Kensington. Gnangarra 11:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
- comment...contiuation of reasonings I have been able to locate another 30 plus sources from various media outlets, government reports, and other reports held at the State Library of Western Australia but these are all paper resources and not digitised so they will require labour & time requesting and reading each in turn.this, i have yet to seek out other sourcing through additional Collections held by the City of Victoria Park, and Curtin University. There are further sources listed in the previous AFD both are behind paywalls, that will need further negotiations Gnan garra 12:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Hurricane Brenda (1973)

(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)reply

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

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)reply

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)reply

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)reply

@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)reply

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)reply

@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)reply

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)reply

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)reply

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)reply

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)reply
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)reply

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)reply

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

@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)reply

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)reply

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)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Oppose - meets WP:GNG - Brenda and other storms listed has significant coverage in independent reliable sources to support standalone articles. Asteramellus (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Asteramellus, the nom is proposing deletion based on WP:PAGEDECIDE, not notability. While the topic itself may be notable, the pages can also be merged per WP:MERGEREASON. FaviFake (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support – the pages are indeed short and it is common practise to merge these kinds of article into the season article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. The topic is notable and the content is worth keeping, just not as a separate page. FaviFake (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

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)

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Deletion Review