Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Points of interest related to Science on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Points of interest related to Physics on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Cleanup – Stubs – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science/archive

Gravitomagnetic (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)

Stub created replacing a redirect. There is already a section in Gravitoelectromagnetism, pages Gravitomagnetic time delay and Gravitomagnetic clock effect as well as other mentions. Plus, while this page claims to be general, it really only describes the work of Ken Nordtvedt. I cannot justify this page existing, everything is elsewhere, I don't see how it adds anything useful. Also, why does the main section include Redaction in the title, a person attack? Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main section Kenneth Nordvedt Redaction is a straight copy from the page Kenneth Nordvedt. There is also another page with, it appears, the same information at Nordtvedt effect. Probably some more deletion/merging needed. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the cut-and-pasted content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Life as we don't know it (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 pages on this disambiguation page are commonly referred to as the title "Life as we don't know it", and none of them even use the phrase in the body text at all. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Disambiguations. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• del vague phrase, title of none. --Altenmann >talk 19:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. As clear-cut a case as you can get of a title failing to meet any actual usage in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 22:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a disambiguation page, not a suitable redirect to any one article, not a list of topics with a common theme, not a stub, not a set index. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Redirect to hypothetical types of biochemistry where closely related terms used to redirect before a "dab" page was boldly made over the redirect. See previous related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_27#Life_as_We_don't_Know_It. Otherwise, I would not be strongly opposed to deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of inorganic reactions (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)

This article has no citations and is simply blatantly wrong. Most of the reactions are organic name reactions and there's really no point of arguing about which reaction is organic or inorganic (simply because they involve inorganic compounds). This list isn't very helpful to readers either. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nomination rationale makes little sense: if some entries are incorrect, this can be solved by editing; if the entries are unsourced, again, this can be solved by editing. Deletion is not cleanup.--cyclopia^speak! 11:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Infinitely-expandable list. "Reactions that involve inorganic compounds"...well, inorganic compounds are pretty abundant on this planet (H2O, O2, HCl, NaCl...) and they all undergo reactions. There is nothing inherently notable about a chemical reaction that involves an inorganic compound, and there is no way any source could talk about all (or even many) such reactions as a cohesive whole, as needed by WP:NLIST, because they would have nothing in common other than involving a reagent lacking carbon. And the list is unsourced. A total mess. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of academic sources dealing with inorganic reactions as a whole: e.g. [1], [2], [3] etc.--cyclopia^speak! 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete As it stands, this would just duplicate a now-nonexistent category, and I'm also finding that it is full of inaccuracies, e.g. shell higher olefin process, which is clearly organic just from the name. Maybe a category would be a good idea but this list is not. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not just sure how much is inaccuracies vs. it just being subjective and ambiguous what you want to consider to be inorganic. The coordination chemistry with the nickel-phosphine complex feels inorganic, even if the reactants are all organic molecules. Do we want to consider organometallic chemistry to be inorganic? I noticed our Template:Branches of chemistry lists organometallic chemistry under inorganic, rather than organic chemistry, but it really is a mixture of both. Photos of Japan (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. ill-defined list. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is it possible to bring this list up to par with List of organic reactions? And are they comparable in terms of scope, notability and "helpfulness"? YuniToumei (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Having looked at the issue more closely, I find it hard to set a clear limited scope for this list. This conversation might be of interest, as it discusses this list's purpose, relation to the other list and why it was previously decided to not limit this list to purely inorganic reactions.YuniToumei (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a completely pointless and useless list, infinitely expandable. What about a List of Novels that include the Word "and"? Athel cb (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do you think there is infinitely numers of inorganic reactions [types]? Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lots of books covers inorganic reaction (types) and/or mechanism (same thing). E.g. search on google books with 'named "inorganic" reactions'Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This clearly only lists notable reactions and mechanisms, so it's certainly not infinitely expandable. There are plenty of articles and textbooks about inorganic reactions so this may be an appropriate navigational list that complements List of organic reactions, especially if perhaps made into a table to explain reagents and significance. As much as I dislike basic bullet point lists, there isn't a related category. Reywas92^Talk 18:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The lack of citations is a matter for clean-up, not deletion. Frankly, I don't think it needs citations given its a list of things (most other lists of the ilk do not have citations.) It follows the same principle as List of organic reactions. A lot of inorganic reactions are legitimately used in organic synthesis & that doesn't detract from their inorganic nature. Organometallic reactions (e.g. Suzuki/cross-coupling, Metathesis, metallation etc) are very organic, but they're also very inorganic. Organic chemists may find them to be useful tools used occasionally to achieve an end, but the inorganic chemist treats them with respect as their own unique grouping - not just occasionally dragged out the shed for their utility - and understands how and why they occur. This encyclopedic grouping is important and shouldn't be lost - something supported by the numerous books on the topic. See M.J. Winter's 'd-Block Chemistry', R. Whyman's 'Applied Organometallic Chemistry and Catalysis', Jenkin's "Organometallic Reagents in Synthesis", Henderson's "The Mechanisms of Reactions at Transition Metal Sites", R. Bates "Organic Synthesis Using Transition Metals". The list is theoretically infinitely expandable, but it shouldn't include every single reaction under the sun - and it doesn't. Keep it to the important ones, and the list is a wholly manageable and useful encyclopedic tool to help people navigate the field, and find the various tools at their disposal. - EcheveriaJ (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I think there might be an assumption that some are making that this article is about every reaction between any given inorganic chemical with any other given chemical. But this article is about general kinds of reactions (oxidation, amination, dehydration, etc.) of which there is a finite and manageable number of notable such reactions. Photos of Japan (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remake from scratch or delete. As identified by @YuniToumei, this list was created in August 2011 to be an inorganic parallel to the "List of organic reactions" page. The creator suggested it should be reasonably selective, but include all common general classes of reaction that rely on the action of inorganic compounds. The list has since ballooned out to 129 reactions. Most of these reactions are also covered in List of organic reactions, which is unsurprising as the organic list holds 790 reactions (i.e. it suggests ~10% of organic reactions involve at least one inorganic catalyst or reagent).
  As an encyclopedia reader, I would expect a list of inorganic reactions to link to reactions whose primary topic is inorganic chemistry, rather than re-covering organic reactions. To fix this, I suggest we:
  1. Create a category Category:Reactions using at least one inorganic compound (a subcategory of Category:Chemical reactions) to hold the reactions currently listed (as suggested by @Mangoe), then
  2. Remake the list to cover only inorganic reactions (i.e. those in scope of Category:Inorganic reactions). For example, the list should cover the various metallothermic reductions, e.g. Aluminothermic reaction, Calciothermic reaction, Silicothermic reaction, and the Kroll process (magnesiothermic reduction), none of which are currently listed.

Preimage (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: it is surprising that editors with little or no track record in chemistry editing are voting with such confidence. We're not talking about Taylor Swift or pop culture here, but hard core chemistry. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't make too many assumptions about people's backgrounds from their editing history. I have a degree in biochemistry, even though I primarily joined to add my photos of Japan. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak of November 29–30, 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:LASTING, I was unable to find any sources on the event or any of its impacts since late 2022. While there are reliable sources that cover this event, such as AccuWeather and Fox Weather, neither of these sources, nor any other secondary source that I could find, has covered it since the event took place, making it fail WP:PERSISTENCE. Because this has seemingly not received secondary coverage outside of a news cycle of only a few days after the event, I believe that this article is non-notable, and should be merged and/or redirected to Tornadoes of 2022. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 15:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Science, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 15:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:LASTING Deriannt (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Tornadoes of 2022 would be the best choice here. While this particular outbreak itself left no longstanding notability in its wake, it is notable enough for inclusion in the aforementioned article. TH1980 (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of acids by Hammett acidity (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)

This could probably be merged into the article Hammett acidity function as it currently doesn't provide much context, and much of the list overlaps with the list on Hammett acidity function. It's also a very short list. Pygos (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a ridiculously short list, shorter, even, than the list at Hammett acidity function (not Hammett acidity as given by Pygos, which doesn't exist). It fulfils no purpose not already served by Hammett acidity function, which can be edited, if necessary, by adding other important examples. Athel cb (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, I put the wrong link. I've fixed it. Pygos (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was planning on adding more. I mainly created the page because I didn't trust the numbers on the other page so I wanted to create my own list with better sources. I suspect some of the numbers on the existing list are also from people confusing hammett acidity with pKa TariosGD1618 (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Added a couple more, no longer shorter than the list at the Hammett acidity function article TariosGD1618 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's the wrong solution. If there are problems with the list at Hammett acidity function it needs to be corrected, not put in competition with another list. Athel cb (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in Hammett acidity function. --cyclopia^speak! 11:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Measure (physics) (via WP:PROD on 7 December 2024)
• Evolution equations in high-energy particle physics (via WP:PROD on 4 December 2024)