Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Science. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Science

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Timeline of Opportunity#Endurance crater. czar 03:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fram (crater)

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

Following the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naturaliste (crater) and Sleepy Hollow (Mars), this is not a notable impact feature. The crater is only 8 metres in diameter. According to estimates Mars has over 90 million craters that have over double the diameter of this crater (see [1]), which probably puts the number of craters of this size in the hundreds of millions. There doesn't appear to be much interesting to be said about this crater either. I propose the article be redirect to either Opportunity (rover) or Timeline of Opportunity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Timeline of Opportunity#Endurance crater cause there's a picture and mention of it in that section as it was discovered 4 days afterward the Endurance investigation missions (and the article is written chronologically). Can't find any indication of WP:SIGCOV in my search, only things are this article, an identical picture with identical description hosted on both the JPL, NASA and "the planetary society" websites, among other images with minimal descriptions across other image hosting websites - seems very WP:MILL per nom, no indication that it is has special significance beyond all those craters, of which many probably have images taken by the rover. Molecular Pilot 03:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Endurance crater, as there's a photo of the Fram crater in that section. Nothing really notable otherwise, and there's less than 10 results in the news tab when searching it up (via find sources). Most other results are just photos. Procyon117 (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect‎ to Cluster decay. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronen's golden rule for cluster radioactivity

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

This rule strikes me as extremely technically specific and of interest to very few people. I can find references to it in only three sources:

Y. Ronen (1991), Phys. Rev. C 44, R594(R)
O. Tavares, L. Roberto, and E. Medeiros (2007), Phys. Scr. 76, 375
O. Tavares and E. Medeiros (2012), Phys. Scr. 86, 015201

The article has only three sentences, and I don't see what more could be added about the topic given its sparse coverage in the sources (in fact, much of the aricle seems to be wrong; as far as I can tell, Ronen's golden rule is much simpler and should be described in just one sentence). Thus, I've added a description of the rule to Cluster decay and propose that this article be deleted. Justin Kunimune (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Justin Kunimune (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The original Ronen paper has only been cited 13 times, the second 32 but still not much. The lack of citations indicates to me that this topic does not deserve its own page, even if it was changed to be more informative.Ldm1954 (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s not much there, sort of like a neutrino. A redirect as suggested, or to Magic number (physics) would be appropriate. Bearian (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Nobel Prize in Physics

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

We do not have any examples of other individual Nobel Prize in Physics entries and a recent one is underdeveloped and not more notable. Efforts are still needed in many laureates and contribution articles including this year laureates. Nobel Peace prizes have individual prizes because nomination is vastly public which is not the case of physics prizes. Wiki articles like this are mostly a collection of WP:RECENT news buzz. The merge discussion above suggested that we should discuss the deletion of this article. ReyHahn (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton, Ldm1954, MYSKaoi, Jähmefyysikko, Quondum, and Sushidude21!: courtesy ping because you participated in the previous conversation.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. ReyHahn (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary, already covered in List of Nobel laureates in Physics
Johnjbarton (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Note that an AfD is appropriate as an earlier PROD was rejected. Ldm1954 (talk)
Delete – Not appropriate to have a separate article: the minimal facts are notable but already more suitably covered in a list article as noted by Johnjbarton. There is no reason why this award should be treated any differently than the other physics Nobel prizes. —Quondum 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to there simply not being enough to say about the awarding of the prize itself, as opposed to the work it was awarded for. The only thing we could possibly say about the award itself is the kerfuffle about whether the work belongs to physics proper, but Nobel Prize controversies#Physics already covers that in a sentence. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please do not make articles merely for the sake of making articles. The fact that the Peace Prize has its own page doesn't mean this one does. Reywas92^Talk 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unwarranted as a stand-alone article, and no unique referenced to content to merge to List of Nobel laureates in Physics. Klbrain (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, support nomination per the rationale and other commenters' arguments. Mekomo (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is literally no way this can make an actual article when there's nothing special about the "2024" prize. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of the Netherlands

AfDs for this article:

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Australia. Recently restored from being a redirect, as the target in question does not contain a list of cultural icons. Not suitable to be a redirect, but it doesn't seem to be a need to have this as an article, either. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the previous AfD and it seems to me that the problem is that "cultural icon" is completely undefined. Entries on such a list may be verified, but they are at the whim of the commentator in the source calling them an icon. I see no purpose in such a random list: delete. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Food and drink, Language, Literature, Music, Architecture, Animal, Entertainment, History, Royalty and nobility, Fashion, Popular culture, Science, Sports, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. "Cultural icon" is far too vague a criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoarchitectonics

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

Jargon term invented in 1999 that has never been adopted by the wider community. I would just delete it as very little links to it. (If you really, really want the name then do a redirect to nanotechnology, but I am not in favor of that.) Ldm1954 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Everything salvageable in this article is already covered in the Nanotechnology article; the term is a needlessly-technical synonym for "controlled nanoassembly" and, as nom said, has never caught on. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A few-second search brings 30,000+ links to dissimilar Google Books and 3000+ uses in Web of Science, either in the article title or abstract. That is definitely not negligible. According to ref. 1 in the article, nanoarchitectonics is wider than nanotechnology and involves ".. non-nanotechnology fields such as supramolecular chemistry with self-assembly/self-organization [44–47], materials fabrications [48–50], and biotechnology [51–55]". Materialscientist (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I cannot verify your claim of 3000+ uses in WoS, I get 1,175 and many of those that have some cites come from K. Ariga. This compares to 55,639 for nanotechnology and 185,073 for nanoparticle. I will definitely dispute the claim in the lead of the article that producing graphere is part of nanoarchitectonics. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you restrict your search? I search in all fields over Web of Science Core Collection. Ariga contributes to 308 entries out of 3,039, that is 10%. Nanoparticle is a different object class. Nanotechnology is definitely a more popular term than nanoarchitectonics, I am not arguing against that. Surely we can dispute how to class technological processes, such as graphene exfoliation, but I don't see how this would be relevant to a decision to keep/delete an article. Anyway, I think graphene exfoliation in the lede explains "nano-creation" and not necessarily nanoarchitectonics. Materialscientist (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not restrict my search, I am not sure why there is a difference. Let's wait for more opinions, at the moment it would be "no concensus". Ldm1954 (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking a couple pages into those Google Books results, and they seem to stop using the term nanoarchitectonics. In general, GB includes a hefty proportion of near-matches, particularly when the search query itself is a rare term. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism/branding term for an area that is not meaningfully distinct or well-defined. XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day phrase with only two primary sources from 25 years ago is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Swell (ocean). as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kallakkadal

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

This is not a distinct phenomenon, but rather a local name for swell surge used in coastal Kerala, also known by various names in other parts of the world. Presenting it as a distinct phenomenon is scientifically inaccurate. Additionally, this is not the Malayalam Wikipedia. Per WP:CFORK, this is an unnecessary content fork. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, and India. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough, and I agree that this would be better treated as a more general topic, but I note that Swell (ocean) does not actually contain the term "swell surge", and does not seem to cover this type of phenomenon. Thus more a case for rewriting and generalizing than for redirecting or deleting? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The article primarily focuses on the swell phenomenon specific to the South Indian coastal region and its local name, "Kallakadal," within the broader context of swells. This is the main distinction highlighted in the article. I recommend merging this content with the Swell (ocean) and adding a brief section under a new headline to address this regional phenomenon (if required).--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it’s basically a WP:FORK, but I won’t oppose a smerge. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 13:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holographic direct sound printing

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

Article based upon a 1 month old paper. While it has minor attention in pop science press, its Altmetric of 76 is not particularly high (it would need 200-300). Page is almost completely promo of research from a single group at Concardia University. Considering how active additive manufacturing currently is, much much more is required. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your science. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Canada. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my science. I found about this method of 3D printing in the newspapers and I thought it probably deserves to be mentioned at Wikipedia. Arwenz (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary sources and churned press releases are not a suitable basis for an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - for me the difficulty is that this is WP:TOOSOON (yes I know that's an essay that's not about scientific research, it just seems appropriate) so we don't know how much lasting importance there is about this discovery. I think an argument can be made for !keep given it has been peer reviewed, !delete because it is really just a small number of scientists saying it is important or !draft on the basis it might soon be shown to be important. I'm not sure how to parse it. JMWt (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is very, very rare to have articles just because they are reviewed, we require extensive secondary sources. TOOSOON is very commonly applied to scientific research. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whether or not one links to the WP:TOOSOON essay, it is too soon. Merely getting through peer review is not enough. (If it were, I could have half a dozen articles about my own work...) XOR'easter (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. After reading through this discussion, I see a consensus to Delete, that the existing souces do not establish notability as judged by Wikipedia guidelines. However, I just wanted to note that this could change in the future depending on the direction of her career. A future article would have to be started in Draft space and go through AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Neeley

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

Neeley is an accomplished woman but is not encyclopedically notable. There isn't much secondary coverage of her nor she does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Mooonswimmer 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Entertainment, Science, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delete. I see little sign of NPROF, with only one highly cited paper that is also very highly coauthored. I am skeptical of GNG -- the NPR piece is somewhat substantial, but the other pieces are either primary (usually authored by the subject) or else do not mention her. The book has gotten some reviews, but these do not list her as an author [2][3]. I considered a redirect to the Story Collider, but as she has moved on from that organization, that doesn't seem to make so much sense. I think this is probably a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting in case I have missed something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removing "weak" from my delete, as I find the delete votes below more compelling than the keep votes. For GNG, I still find the one NPR piece to contribute somewhat to notability, but the rest seems to me like passing mentions, and I don't think it is enough. No sign whatsoever of NAUTHOR notability, minimal (and arrested) progress towards NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this the same person: [4]. a citation factor of 10 or 11 doesn't seem that high, but I'm unsure. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Might pass AUTHOR, with some book reviews for "Escape from the Ivory Tower", [5], [6], [7]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But all three of those say that the book is by Nancy Baron, and do not mention Neeley. Baron does thank Neeley in the acknowledgements (alongside a lot of other folks). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just came to the same conclusion that she did not write the book (and reverted myself when I added one review to Neeley's article) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeley did not write that book. Mooonswimmer 01:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are at least four sources I found in the article for WP:GNG. I'm listing them up here for ease of access. The first one has the most coverage of the subject; the other three are more than just passing mention but less than significant coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Maddie Sofia (January 14, 2020). "Your Brain On Storytelling : Short Wave" (Podcast). NPR. Retrieved 2021-06-02.
2. ~~Wilcox, Christie; Brookshire, Bethany; Goldman, Jason G (2016). Science blogging: the essential guide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300197556. OCLC 920017519.~~
3. Achenbach, Joel (2023-04-09). "Opinion | Why science is so hard to believe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. ProQuest 1655455709.
4. Renken, Elena (11 April 2020). "How Stories Connect And Persuade Us: Unleashing The Brain Power Of Narrative". NPR.org.
5. Sirois, Cheri (April 25, 2024). "Creating connections when we talk about science". Cell (Interview). 187 (9). Cell Press: 2120–2123. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.043. (added to list Oct 21)
Delete. Coverage by the subject themselves, as in the NPR interviews, is not independent or secondary, so does not count towards GNG. She is one of the authors of the science blogging guide so that is not an independent reference either. The WP article has no encyclopedic coverage of her, just quotes and an anecdote about her dad that would be UNDUE. These are not substantial enough for NPROF C7 and definitely not for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with @Nnev66 that she has just enough NPR articles/podcasts for WP:GNG. I think the Short Wave podcast would be enough. Bpuddin (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bpuddin, what is the secondary independent coverage that is in that interview? GNG requires multiple SIGCOV IRS sources, so even a single SIGCOV source (the NPR interviews count as one source) would not be sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disagree that the sources @Nnev66 highlighted don't contribute to GNG; she's being included in them as an expert on science communication, not just a general interview about her or her work. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG typically requires significant coverage. The sources mentioned above do not meet that standard. While being a leading expert in certain fields can make an individual encyclopedically notable, we would need evidence such as frequent citations by peers, a decent number of highly cited scholarly publications, teaching positions, contributions to significant research, or at least explicit statements from reliable sources recognizing them as a top expert in their field. I'd say most people holding a PhD in their fields are experts, but that doesn't make them all notable per Wikipedia's standards, even if they're cited/interviewed in one or two mainstream news outlets as experts. Mooonswimmer 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/update: I've struck the Science blogging book ref in my list for notability above as it is a primary source. I was reading sentences in a Google link to the book that mislead me into thinking there was a section about Neeley - once I got ahold of the book I realized there was no secondary coverage. Regarding the other three references, the NPR ones could be considered one source as they both refer to the Short Wave podcast. By my reading of WP:INTERVIEWS#Notability, I believe they provide significant coverage as the host does synthesis of Neeley's background and credentials and presents it in her own words, thereby making it secondary coverage. As noted above, there is some coverage of Neeley in the WaPo reference - more than passing mention but it could argued not significant coverage. Also added another reference to article I found in the journal Cell which is also an interview but has a mix of primary/secondary coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cell interview definitely does not have "a mix of primary/secondary coverage" -- the only secondary coverage is less than a sentence in the intro: science communicator Liz Neeley, founding partner of Liminal and cofounder of Solving for Science. That's nowhere near SIGCOV...

I also just noticed that the WaPo article is an opinion piece, which is explicitly disallowed from counting towards notability as it's a primary source.

So even if either of the NPR interviews contained IRS SIGCOV (which they do not), we would still need multiple sources to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the WaPo piece is not an opinion piece by Neeley (which would be primary), but she and her work are cited and discussed within it to support the Auchenbach's commentary. (In full, it's an excerpt from a National Geographic feature story "The Age of Disbelief" (March 2015), though most of the Neeley quote and commentary there is as it is in the Post piece.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, opinion pieces are considered primary regardless of what they're covering or who they're by. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except based on the content, the Auchenbach piece isn't an opinion piece. It's from 2015 when the current "Opinions" section was called "Outlook" and ran book reviews, along with opinion pieces, commentary, and analysis. This piece, despite the current "Opinion" label from the Post's website, is clearly secondary in nature, providing analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of research into the ways people process (and deny) scientific evidence. Neeley is quoted and her work referenced as part of that. If the Post's opinion label on an excerpt makes it primary in your mind, then look to the original article: Achenbach, Joel (March 2015) "The Age of Disbelief", National Geographic, 277(3):30–47... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I said the source was to too far from SIGCOV to count towards GNG even before seeing it was labeled an opinion piece, so this doesn't change anything for me. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cell interview is in a reliable source and shows a depth of preparation by the interviewer. In the opening the interviewer notes: You trained in marine biology and conservation, but you also have wide experience in communicating a range of ideas, from neuroscience to the COVID-19 pandemic. From there the interviewer notes the subject's “theory and practice of sensemaking" and asks her to expand on it in the context of telling complicated science-themed stories. The proceeding questions ask the subject to unpack how to write for a general audience and differences between technical writing versus scientific storytelling. The interviewer is synthesizing what the subject says, which I consider secondary, before proceeding on to the next question. Nnev66 (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interviewer just says You’ve said in the past that you’re focused on the “theory and practice of sensemaking.” That has zero secondary content, it's just repeating what the subject has said about themselves. None of the subsequent questions have anything more than that.

Interviewer questions that suggest a "depth of preparation" are still not coverage unless they actually contain secondary analysis of the subject. Otherwise every interview with a couple pointed questions would be considered SIGCOV. And someone's live reactions to another person's statements are exactly what our policy on primary encompasses: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied [...] They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer." The interviewer is a participant in the interview. This is consistent with longstanding practical consensus on interviews at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are perhaps reliable enough to support the claims in the article, but none of them contributes to WP:GNG; they are not simultaneously in-depth, independent, and reliably published. Among Nnev's selection, the first NPR link and Cell are interviews (most content non-independent). The crossed-off book source is a chapter by the subject about self-promotion (a bit of a red flag). The second NPR link and the WaPo piece name-drop her for some quotes but have no depth of coverage about her. And I didn't see much else. That leaves WP:PROF#C1, and her citation record [8], where she was a minor coauthor in a middle position on one well-cited publication on a subject totally unrelated to her science communication work. I don't think we can base an article, especially this article, on that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as a no consensus, which is still my read, but following a request I have decided to relist it because consensus is preferable to kicking this down the road.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not looked into rest of evidence but I agree with David Eppstein that there is not a pass of PROF by citation profile here. Looking at the alphabetisation of the list of Nature paper authors Neeley does not seem to be more than a very minor contributor, and the other moderately cited papers do not meet my expectations. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject does not meet the criteria of WP:NPROF, and there is no significant of her or her work that would satisfy WP:GNG. The accumulation of several quotes as an expert in good outlets is a start, but I don't see it as being enough to overcome the lack of other significant sources. Malinaccier (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time's a charm?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete UzbukUdash (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UzbukUdash, AFDs aren't a vote, please present an argument to support your opinion, based on policy and your assessment of the sources. Otherwise, your opinion is likely to be dismissed by the discussion closer. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, the subject fails WP:NACADEMIC. There isn't any WP:SIGCOV and many of the sources are WP:PRIMARY. The NPR podcasts fall into the category of WP:PRIMARY and thus do not contribute to WP:GNG. DesiMoore (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate

Deletion Review