Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

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

watch

Science

Mohammed Tharwat Hassan

Mohammed Tharwat Hassan (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)

Associate Professor with an h-factor of 12 and no major awards. No evidence that he comes close to satisfying any of the WP:NPROF criteria. While notability was challenged in a tag by Kj cheetham in Feb 2022, it appears it was not followed up on. He has somehow slipped through the normal review process that would avoid non-notable academics. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Essense club

Essense club (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 makes no claim of notability. Cabayi (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Atheism and Kerala. Cabayi (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• On the fence. Their "Litmus" events appear to have attracted a decent amount of coverage. Here's what I see: Times of India, The Hindu, Times of India, Times of India, The Hindu, New Indian Express.. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete No inherent notability WP:ORGSIG, thi is a small club (sangam) part of Kerala Yukthivadi Sangham ,Like a committee formed to stage events. No significant socks. Like the music event One debate is held a year Its main organization is Kerala Yukthivadi Sangham, for which no page is required. ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Phenomenology (general science and discourse)

Phenomenology (general science and discourse) (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 first draftified this, but it was recreated. A rather unfocused essay, linking to a long youtube video uploaded by someone with the same name as the creator of this article. No idea what e.g. "Homo Erectus, Habilis, and then Sapiens also followed each other with great diasporas; that evidence shows also kept in touch, at least for new ideas to spread from end to end over a few decades, as how they formed diverse languages that spoke about the same experiences of nature. " is supposed to mean, and something like "a broad model of how the great early languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, might seem to have emerged fully formed as they were written down following the Bronze Age." seems decidedly un-mainstream science. Fram (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete badly-sourced unfocused essay. The other meanings of phenomenology (especially Phenomenology (philosophy) and Phenomenology (physics)) remain notable, of course, but this one doesn't even amount to a clear statement of what its subject is, let alone provide convincing evidence that there is an independently notable subject to be described. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Personal ruminations about philosophy aren't an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• JLH Reply - I updated the page today. I finished late, but before reading these notes, I significantly reshaped them in the way the above notes suggested. It's one heck of an important topic, though: the long view of what gave language reliable meaning, viewed at this time when the usefulness of language is breaking down all around us, for not anchoring our meanings to things everyone can relate to. I suggest you leave it up unless you find it polluting in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessieHenshaw (talk • contribs) 2024-08-30T04:52:56 (UTC)
• Delete, or Draftify mainly so it can be completely rewritten from scratch and resubmitted via WP:AfC (i.e. WP:TNT). I agree that it is an important topic, but the current form is too far from acceptable as an encyclopedic article. Please look at some others and restructure from scratch, not just an update. If the originator and others will accept I can draftify it; we don't normally do that during an AfD discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Trust the science-Reply2 I've done what I can for now in the first draft and general second draft revision of Phenomenology (general science and discourse). The present form responded to many of these objections above prior to my reading them. The main problem is that the word "phenomenology" came to mean so many different things and was strongly influenced by the philosophical study of appearances. That produced nice discussions of lots of things but is a profoundly unfocused reference to the Greek meaning of the word, which translates as "the study of phenomena." Perception is still a phenomenon, of course, but even a philosophy of perception is not a study of the phenomena of perception.

So, as we deal with the extraordinary ancient and emerging biases of human perception and add to long lists of terms for "disambiguation," misleading biases may still reign as favorite expressions of other fields. That also creates the opportunity for someone to come along and start the "de-ambiguating" of misused words to retain a connection to their original root meaning.

So, the project taken on here, to begin such a process, is a rather modest one now, written by a senior scientist with a very broad understanding of what science is and isn't, where it came from, and may or may not be going. I believe it would be healthy for language to remain anchored, as it began, to commonly recognizable phenomena so that our individual interpretations can all have the same roots in nature, largely independent of interpretation.

It seems certain that language had to begin with that, as by the dawn of civilization, language had already developed into an amazingly effective and useful tool for understanding how to live, create complex and rich cultures, and care for living things. That shows a level of understanding life that the great power of science has still not come close to matching.

Of course, language has become much more sophisticated, varied, and freely inventive, and it is also much less linked to things independent of the feedback loops of perception, I think we can all agree. JessieHenshaw (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Science Redirects for discussion

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate