Edge Rewrite
pun Source code View original
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 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:
Purge page cache watch

Science

[edit]

Directorate for Resource Management

[edit]


Directorate for Resource Management (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)

The article covers a defunct HR/accounting department of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. No significant coverage, fails WP:ORG. Samoasambia ✎ 19:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

CYC1

[edit]


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)reply

@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:
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)reply
@Boghog: Cool!
(the following could be a conversation to be had elsewhere, I realized, but...)
Yeah, the wording, for sure, was quite awkward. The thing is, though, is that most articles worked off of that whenever crowdsourced expansions were made. Even if they do point out or mention orthologs exist in other species, if at all, they're often from other animals anyway. It tends to be hard to figure out or find out what the protein actually does outside the context of multicellular macro organisms.
I do wonder what the articles look like for genes/proteins not found in humans...? I think the standard opening should always have been [recommended UniProt name] is a protein that is encoded by the [gene name/symbol] gene. and a second sentence should be tacked on for if it's active/present in humans, like In humans, it is encoded by the [approved HUGO gene symbol] gene. The old standard gives this false impression that humans/animals/eukaryotes have the most amount of genes of all species,[a] that they represent most of the genes ever known and that theirs is the standard. That's how we ended up with artless like CYC1/Cytochrome C1 not once even mention its involvement in Fe2+ oxidation.[b]

CheckNineEight (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

@CheckNineEight: Orthologous genes in different species commonly have the same function, so it is often straight forward to figure out what these genes are doing in other species including uni-celluar organisms. However, given how different human CYC1 and iron-oxidizing bacterium cyc1 are in sequence (they are not orthologs) and in function, they do not belong in the same article.
The Gene Wiki project created articles only for genes expressed in humans, rather than genes found exclusively in other species. However, the vast majority of human genes have counterparts in other species. Gene Wiki articles use the {{infobox gene}} template, which includes an ortholog section linking to database entries for orthologous genes (NCBI and OMA). Conversely, a few genes are specific to humans, such as NOTCH2NLA, ARHGAP11B, and SRGAP2C.
As you point out, numerous genes are absent from humans. Many already have Wikipedia articles created outside the scope of Gene Wiki. Examples include DNA gyrase, MurA, dihydropteroate synthase, nitrogenase, EPSP synthase, RuBisCO, β-1,3-glucan synthase, and chitin synthase. The {{infobox nonhuman protein}} template was created specifically for genes/proteins that do not occur in humans. Gene Wiki's focus on human genes has in no way restricted the creation or development of articles about genes and proteins found in other species.
Returning to CYC1, human cytochrome c1 (gene CYC1) has no role in iron oxidation as a metabolic process, although the protein contains a heme group whose iron alternates between the ferric and ferrous states during electron transfer. The gene symbol cyc1 is also used for a distantly homologous (but not orthologous) gene in the iron-oxidizing bacterium Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans, which encodes a diheme c4-type cytochrome (c552) involved in iron oxidation.
Boghog (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Nescience

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
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)reply

  • 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)reply
  • 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
  • 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)reply
    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)reply
  • 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)reply
  • 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)reply
  • 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)reply

Preeni Withanage

[edit]


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)reply

  • 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)reply
    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)reply

Science Proposed deletions

[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion

[edit]

Science Redirects for discussion

[edit]

Deletion Review

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science&oldid=1378456049"