Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Society of Physicists of Macedonia (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 found no notability per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Macedonia. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 75+ y.o. professional organizations. Sources are likely in Macedonian (using Cyrillic alphabet) and Greek (using Greek alphabet), so not surprising that they can't be found in a summary google search. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for same reason as above. Searching on the Cyrillic I find some pages, although I am relying on Chrome translate. It does seem to be an established organization that has been around for a significant time, no reason to delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Norton (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:BIO and WP:PROF. I have checked the sources are most of them are primarily about the Australian Grains Genebank and small mentions of this person not meeting WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Rodgers (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:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, Antarctica, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No indication of passing GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in Scott Base. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. PamD 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I've had a look what The Press has on offer and found that she was secretary of the Canterbury Caving Club soon after it was founded, and that it was not until 1988 that the second New Zealand woman spent a winter on the ice. The article in the Antarctic Magazine is very decent, but without at least a second article of substance, there isn't a good reason to keep this article. Merging seems appropriate. Schwede66 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them (Newshub and The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about. Nnev66 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction. Nnev66 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge She's the first woman to winter-over specifically at Scott Base. Others came before her in Antarctica more generally; there are also many thousands of named Antarctic landforms, so I'm not convinced this is a basis for notability for a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ELKO theory (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)

Article based upon one source which has been cited 4 times, plus a second more cited source that has nothing to do with the topic. The page was previously deleted, and as part of NPR I tagged a newly created version for questionable notability, no significant scientific coverage and in need of better sourcing to avoid a future AfD. Editor User:TakuyaMurata immediately removed the maintenance tag of notability claiming that a Google search indicates that it is notable; I find no evidence of this. Hence time for an AfD as not notable for a more complete discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Perhaps the previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass dimension one fermions is helpful here. There does seem to exist some sufficient amount of publications to justify the notability (please Google with “elko field” too). According to the previous AfD, there is some coi issue, which I cannot tell just from looking at the article alone. But at least the notability is considered, it looked ok to me. Needless to say, the more citations and references there are the better (and more such are probably needed). —- Taku (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just saying "Google it" is absolutely useless for determining notability. What reliable, independent, secondary sources exist now that didn't exist in 2020? XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe not new. But in order to determine if the topic is notable or not, we just look at the amount/quality of publications: Google is a standard way to see that. I suppose you can create the appearance of research activities by citing each other (not saying this one is). That’s not a good practice but Wikipedia isn’t a place to judge whether certain research activities are genuine or not. —- Taku (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Google is not "a standard way to see" how much relevant, peer-reviewed material there is on a topic. General-purpose Google has never been good for that — and grows worse by the day — and even Google Scholar is only useful if employed carefully.

  What peer-reviewed publications, not written by the original inventors of this idea, discuss it in depth? Name three. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t think it matters much whether some papers are independent of the creator of the theory. In some field, the originators have a very strong influence; that doesn’t mean the theory is not notable in the eyes of Wikipedia. As a research activity, that’s too promotional and problematic? Perhaps, but again in Wikipedia we don’t judge the quality of the research. I know especially for biographical articles, we need secondary sources but research articles are somehow different (again because of the way some research topics are pursued). The existence of the textbook I mentioned below especially seems a very strong indication for the notability, since the publisher thinks the topic is worth publishing. —- Taku (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it very much matters, by policy. A textbook by one of the authors of the original publication is not an independent source. It's very much the opposite of an independent source. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I said above, some research topic just doesn’t develop independent of the originator. That should not be a ground for non-notability. Of course, the textbook isn’t an independent source but, unlike bio articles, it doesn’t mean it is not a reliable source; that part of policy isn’t about like textbooks that can be cited. If interpreted literally, it’s like you can’t cite Grothendieck since he is involved in the creation of scheme theory. It doesn’t work that way when we cover scientific topics; throughout Wikipedia, we do cite plenty of textbooks that are not independent of the subject. —- Taku (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (To add, it seems there is a conflict of reliability: in academia, a primary source is usually considered more reliable than the secondary one. Because of this, even in Wikipedia, for scientific articles, we often prefer to cite textbooks by the authors close to the subject than the secondary ones. —- Taku (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]

  We can cite textbooks and monographs and review articles by people involved with an article topic. But we don't base notability decisions on them. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For scientific topics, I think a primary textbook can be counted towards the notablity. We have the notability criterion in part because we need reliable sources to write an article. For scientific articles, primary sources can be reliable (arguably more reliable in some instances). So, the existence of such sources could and should be a ground for the notability. Here, it is important to note that the textbook in question is published from a reputable publisher not a self-publishing book. —- Taku (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, primary sources aren't enough. Otherwise anyone who managed to get a paper published in a journal could claim that their work deserves a Wikipedia article. And that just isn't the case. XOR'easter (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, a primary paper isn’t sufficient. A textbook seems different though: not anyone can publish a textbook (except self-publishing ones). A textbook from a reputable publisher thus should count something. (I guess, in a sense, you can say a textbook isn’t completely primary; it comes with a sort of authorization from a publisher.) Taku (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  By the exact same logic, a published paper wouldn't be "primary", because it "comes with a sort of authorization from a publisher". Moreover, the book you linked is a monograph, not a textbook: it's a single-author work in which the author describes their own research. Cambridge UP has printed dozens of those. Some of them are on notable topics, others perhaps not. XOR'easter (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The difference is that monographs (yes, I should have said textbook or monograph as the book is a monograph) are more selective and fewer than journal papers. A reputable series like the Cambridge one does not publish books on topics that are fringe or of marginal research interest. In that way, being part of the series gives the topic a sort of authority; in fact, we often use some selective list or awards to determine a given topic is notable or not (and the Cambridge series is independent of the subject). I agree some topic covered in the series is something quite personal, something inseparable from the author. But as said above, I don’t think that is a problem. A one-man’s work can be perfectly notable. Taku (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  By the way, there is apparently a book about the topic according to the previous AfD (I think this one [1], which isn’t a self-published one). That seems significant. Maybe the previous article was promotional in tone (which I don’t know since I can’t see the deleted article), but this article doesn’t sound promotional in tone. —- Taku (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  XOR'easter, for clarity I don't see your vote on the AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Haven't had time to come to a final judgment yet. The current state of the article would incline me to !vote "delete", but I wanted to sift the literature myself first. XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Insufficient sources to support notability. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]