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

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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science.

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

Bubble laser

Bubble laser (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)

Classic example of WP:TOOSOON. Article is based upon a Jan 2024 paper which made a minor splash with popular science blogs and journals. There is no true evidence of notability, this type of article is not what Wikipedia is for. The topic could be returned to in a year if many others copy it. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The WP:GNG is the way we determine notability. Simply that a topic is new does not preclude it from being notable. Regarding the one-year test,

Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. -- WP:NTEMP

Therefore, I believe there is no need for a year-long wait as you suggest, because the subject meets the GNG. I will substantiate that below:

This topic has recieved significant coverage (full-length articles) in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. These include:

• "Bubble lasers can be sturdy and sensitive" in Physics Today, a publication of the American Institute of Physics
• "A Soap Bubble Becomes a Laser" in Physics magazine, by the American Physical Society
• "Soap bubbles transform into lasers" in Physics World by the Institute of Physics (UK)
• "Tiny lasers can be made from soap bubbles" in New Scientist

I believe that these sources provide "true evidence of notability" as specified in the GNG. I don't think there are extra subject-specific criteria that would apply to this article. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are citing popular science articles not full fledged referred articles. If there were 30 arXiv by others already then that would indicate that the scientific community considered it valid and notable, without that it is classic WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASLA

NASLA (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)

Page describes a project which started in 2010, and based upon https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/262209/reporting/it is now finished. The project webpage now links somewhere else, and I could not find anything on it on the web except for other uses of the name. A relic. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chirotechnology

Chirotechnology (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)

Purely a definition of a term which is based upon a single source. A Google search finds very little beyond links to the same book, a small number of articles and a few companies that have names that are a variation of Chirotechnology. It is not a common term, so I do not see any rationale for keeping this page. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Chirotechnology clearly fails WP:GNG and the page itself fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and due to the lack of proper sources it probably never will. Ships&Space (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chiral resolution. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, Redirect is better than just delete. Do you want to add the book to Chiral resolution, which itself has mainly old refs; I disliked organic chemistry as an undergrad, so I am not willing to judge utility. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have the book, and probably the lack the skills to determine whether it would enhance the existing article or not. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The book has 962 cited in Google Scholar, and at least as important the author Roger A. Sheldon is definitely notable. I have therefore added it as Further reading where it is appropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muneer Alshowkan

Muneer Alshowkan (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)

Alshowkan doesn't seem to meet any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria, having reached Assistant Professor before leaving for industry. His current post (from the references) is "postdoctoral scholar". His important work seems to have been done as part of a team at Oak Ridge. Considering WP:BIO, there are some prizes ('top 100' listing in an industry magazine), but this doesn't seem sufficiently notable. My searches don't find more to add to the notability argument (including looking at Scopus and Google Scholar listings, which are linked). Klbrain (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Connecticut, New York, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The job titles are largely irrelevant, and ORNL is a government research lab, not "industry". But for someone who works there, the relevant criteria are still most of the same ones under WP:PROF, with maybe #C5 out of reach but the rest still relevant. His citation record [1] is not enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1, and we have no evidence of any of the other criteria (such as being elected as a fellow of a major research society). I don't think the R&D World magazine listicle [2] counts towards WP:GNG or anything else, because it is not a significant national-level honor (merely the topic one of 100 spammy short articles per year in a certain magazine) and the article does not even mention Alshowkan. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. With an h-factor of 12 and 61 publications he is not even close to WP:PROF. I also have some concerns about the award, since it is not an independent sources -- if it is real then there will be one. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phi complex

Phi complex (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)

Cannot find more than two or three sources on Google scholar User:Sawerchessread (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G12 and WP:TNT as press-release copyvio that no one has cared enough to write more about since 2007. Well, to be fair, some of it was copied out of the underlying article, too. For example, the PNAS abstract reads, High-resolution spectral analysis of electrical brain activity before and during visually mediated social coordination revealed a marked depression in occipital alpha and rolandic mu rhythms during social interaction that was independent of whether behavior was coordinated or not. In contrast, a pair of oscillatory components (phi₁ and phi₂) located above right centro-parietal cortex distinguished effective from ineffective coordination: increase of phi₁ favored independent behavior and increase of phi₂ favored coordinated behavior. Meanwhile, this article says, The study demonstrated a clear reduction in occipital lobe alpha wave and mu wave rhythms during social interaction. The evident suppression was independent of whether or not behavior was coordinated. In contrast, a pair of oscillatory components (phi-1 and phi-2) above the right centro-parietal cortex distinguished effective from ineffective coordination. An increase of phi-1 favored independent behavior and increase of phi-2 favored coordinated behavior. So, what wasn't ripped off from the press release was ripped off from the paper. Beyond the legal issues, we should have more respect for ourselves than to host material like this. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per above there is Copyvio and also only one citation. Maxcreator (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha factor

Alpha factor (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 appears to be a definition of a parameter during solidification. It has no general context, does not appear to be notable and I find essentially nothing about it in a Google search. If someone wants to add context to repair it I will withdraw the nomination, but to me it does not belong on Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Jackson alpha factor is a dimensionless parameter stemming from Jackson's classical mean-field theory of crystal growth. Its value indicates whether a crystal growth interface is smooth or rough, analogous to a Reynolds number. In addition to the two books cited in the article, there are other secondary sources discussing the concept such as [3] and [4]. While it is not a hugely notable concept, it seems well-verified in secondary reliable sources and IMO passes the test for notability per WP:GNG. As part of the history of crystal growth modeling, it could have a place on Wikipedia. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 11:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mark viking, please then include the context. As written only someone who has worked in the area will have an idea what it is for. For instance:

  • It's relevance for flat surfaces in the lead (what you say above, expanded)
  • Links to experimental verification and the other sources you mention
  • Limitations (can be brief)
  • A Figure would be good

  Currently it fails the readers first test. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Terrible math formatting, but a wiki-notable concept. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Liem

David S. Liem (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)

There is no notability claim in the article other than a those related to postdoctoral work on hepatology and that the a frog (Taudactylus liemi)) was named after him. WP:NACADEMIC isn't met (unsurprising given that most of his career is outside of academia), and there are no other claims. I haven't been able to find other material supporting notability for this David Liem. Klbrain (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, while I acknowledge the current scarcity of sources provided for David Liem's Wikipedia article, it's important to consider the context in which the article was created. At the time of its creation, my primary focus was on promptly documenting Liem's contributions, particularly his discovery of the Rheobatrachus silus species. This urgency made me reach the realization that including Liem's page would complete and improve the species' article. Sources probably exist out there and we shouldn’t just delete it per WP:NPOSSIBLE. V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I must address the procedural concerns surrounding the deletion request. The unilateral decision to move the article to a different page (Eungella tinker frog) without prior consultation or discussion is concerning and goes against the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Subsequently proposing the deletion of the article without engaging in constructive dialogue further exacerbates this issue as the person that nominated the article for deletion seems to have done it spontaneously. V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that this is all a bit blunt V.B.Sepanza, and thanks for your contributions to the project. The move was part of the new page patrol protocol which doesn't include or expect consultation prior to moves; I marked the move as bold, and don't mind being reversed. The next step, having been reversed, is to seek wider views here given that if the merge isn't a suitable alternative to deletion, then deletion seems the way forward. Thanks for adding your views as the page creator. Klbrain (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain: Your deletion nomination brings 0 benefits to the community, Wikipedians seem to only care about known stuff while advocating for the contrary. The page is a direct translation of the German page that originates from the French page (created in 2009). V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, Indonesia, Australia, Illinois, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GS cites inadequate in a high-cited field and the frog is not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I don't think taxonomy is a high-citation field; the nomination seems to confuse hepatology (a high-citation medical specialty) with herpetology (the study of reptiles and amphibians, his actual work area). Regardless, he doesn't have enough citations even in a low-citation field to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies for the typo! Klbrain (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mind uploading in fiction

Mind uploading in fiction (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 topic is likely notable (see SFE), but our execution is terrible. First, the prose part is pretty much unreferenced (the article is tagged with OR warning for 5 years now), then a gigantic list of random examples (mostly unreferenced too), failing WP:OR/WP:V/WP:IPC/MOS:TRIVIA/WP:NLIST/WP:NOTTVTROPES/etc. Mind uploading does not have a section about 'fiction/culture', just mentions this article in lead. Looking at article's history, this was split (exorcised...) from the main article in the old 00's, and of course it had no references or such ([5]). The article hasn't been improved since, quality wise, just accumulated more fancruft. WP:TNT is required. For now, this can be WP:ATD-Rredirected to the main article, with no prejudice for this being restored as an article - but it will need to be rewritten from scratch using reliable sources like the SFE article I've linked. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, Science, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am not commenting on the contents of the article. However, it should be brought to everyone's attention that several prominent (controversial) figures have claimed Mind uploading will be reality in the not-to-distant future (see Mind uploading#Advocates) including Elon Musk (Elon Musk’s Big Neuralink Paper: Should We Prepare For The Digital Afterlife?. One would suspect that fiction would be a good source for trying to understand such a world. I am not so sure WP:TNT is necessary. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @BeFriendlyGoodSir We do have an article on reality (science) at Mind uploading. And fiction article would be good to have too - but fancruft is realistically not rescuable; experience shows that noone wants to spend countless hours verifying/referencing such stuff - only solution is to blow this up, and write something from scratch, using sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with removing WP:OR but I disagree with removing all content that is not original research. Why not add a flag at the top of the page asking for citations? The current one only applies to WP:OR. If you TNT this, I would not be surprised if this article gets rewritten again to the same size without any citations added all over. Let's save volunteer time where possible. Regarding your fancruft concern, I think that can be fixed. - 04:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC) BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nomination statement cites WP:MOS, which is about how we present information, not what we cover, implying that the problems here are surmountable and deletion is unnecessary. Ping me if MOS statements are stricken from the nomination statement. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The existence of problems with presentation necessarily making problems with substance surmountable is certainly a position you can take, but it's not a particularly coherent one. I am sure you would agree that if somebody makes an incorrect statement riddled with typos, fixing the latter would not somehow resolve the factual inaccuracies. TompaDompa (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  MOS is relevant. That policy warns, for example, that "When not effectively curated, such material can attract trivial references or otherwise expand in ways not compatible with Wikipedia policies such as what Wikipedia is not and neutral point of view." as well "A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources (e.g., a dictionary or encyclopedia). A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Draftify This page requires a full rewrite and is currently inappropriate for Wikipedia, lacking citations and being largely WP:OR. It is an example of a viable subject with an unencyclopedic page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but trim and add reliable sources. I will help in this effort. Perhaps this should be renamed List of Mind uploading in fiction instead of going in depth on a few books in the intro. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Taking a list approach is really the opposite of what we should be doing to clean this up. In the past, what has worked when it comes to fixing these types of articles has been to rewrite them essentially from scratch in a prose format using sources on the overarching topic—see e.g. WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture, WP:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination), and WP:Articles for deletion/Time viewer. Or just recently, WP:Articles for deletion/Tachyons in fiction (2nd nomination) (though I can't vouch for the quality of that one as I haven't taken a particularly close look at the new version). TompaDompa (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Overhauling is needed, not deletion. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There seems to be agreement both that the topic is notable and that the article as it existed at time of nomination was not in an acceptable state. I took a look at the article and the sources and concluded that it would be way less effort to start over from scratch than to attempt to salvage the mess that was there. We now have a very brief start for a properly-sourced article (courtesy link to the version as of my writing this for future reference). It could certainly be expanded (at least somewhat), though I don't anticipate finding the time to do so within the relatively-near future. I invite everyone who commented above to consider whether it would be better to keep this here for future expansion or to merge it to the main mind uploading article. @Piotrus, BeFriendlyGoodSir, Jclemens, Zxcvbnm, and ArvindPalaskar: What do you think? TompaDompa (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With the current scrap of an article that remains, merging is a better idea than retaining it there. It's clearly a subtopic and marked as such; subtopics should be split off when the amount of content necessitates a split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am totally fine, as usual, with the TNT-and-rewrite approach, and TD's version is acceptable to me. If it is not merged, it should be added as a new section with the 'main' link to the subarticle (that can likely be expanded). In fact, I'll do it now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Opening sentence of the deletion rational "The topic is likely notable" immediately followed by "but our execution is terrible" WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The nomination mentioned WP:V as a rationale for deletion, which is perfectly allowed by policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing that is notable that is not also verifiable, per WP:NRVE. The fact that something notable is not verified is a surmountable problem, and not a reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Vinga

Susana Vinga (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 prof, some early career awards, decent number of citations but perhaps not especially high. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF. Might be WP:TOOSOON or WP:MILL. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Portugal. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Associate professor doing what professors do... I don't find notability, or much of any sourcing we can use. Primary sources are used for the article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed Delete and WP:TOOSOON. I'd like to see lots and lots of researchers in Wikipedia, but the vast majority will never reach the bar of general notability, unfortunately. -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is mainly "local" (national prizes in Mathematics and from the University of Lisbon, as mentioned).

Main achievements in alignment-free sequence analysis and comparison (link to page), and internationally in 2% of highly-cited researchers (2021 and career) by "Stanford University has released its global list that represents the top 2% of Scientists in various disciplines, on 10-10-2022" - DOI: 10.17632/btchxktzyw.4) (not yet on the page). 193.136.100.230 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like that citation. Thanks. -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some looking into this data. Vinga is listed in the main sub-category of "bioinformatics". Based on her full career publication and citation record, the Stanford data places her at rank 91 out of 7,142 in this broad subfield; I believe this is a figure that supports her notability ... but need additional measures. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think her citation record [6] is strong enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  thanks - reviewing this ... -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  item G. in this Guideline states "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My opinion is not based on the number of works the subject has authored. It is based on the number of times those works were cited. Six publications with triple-digit citation counts (one with almost quadruple digits) is a good record, one that indicates that her works are having a substantial impact on other researchers in the area. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an h-index of 29 alone (rather low in a highly cited field such as biology) does not denote "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline [...] as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." as the "independent reliable sources" part is missing. No major award either, so I do not see any WP:NACADEMIC criteria being fulfilled. Broc (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The "independent reliable sources" are the 4282 academic publications that cite hers. That's what that phrase in that criterion means: many publications that cite the works of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, h = 29 is not impressive in her field. To check, I looked at the data for another Portuguese informatician that I know (I won't give his name). He is probably 15 to 20 years older (important, because everyone's h increases with age), but it's hard to tell, because her article doesn't say when she was born and we don't know how long ago the photo was taken. Anyway, my informatician has a Google h = 60, and his most cited publication has 3800 citations. Athel cb (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- per David Eppstein. The h-index argument is convincing. I'd like to see some kind of support for Broc's claim that h-indices run high in Biology. Central and Adams (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a well known fact, but here's an article [7] where it is stated "For Biology [...] very highly cited scientists have h ≈ 150". So in my opinion an academic with h-index of 29 in biology is not at all "highly cited", hence doesn't meet C1. Broc (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Broc, I don't even look at those things. If we cannot cite a specific instance of someone citing the work and proving its importance, what are we doing? Drmies (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Drmies I fully agree. Not one single reliable secondary sources describing the impact of the subject on her field of study has been brought up in this AfD. The only "keep" !votes entirely rely on the argument "she has many citations so she must be notable" and I wanted to show how this argument is faulty, as she is not a highly cited author in her field. Your argument still stand, and I agree with it: we do not want to host resumes of WP:MILL academics on Wikipedia. Broc (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reason we have NPROF#C1 is that there may not be one single reliable secondary sources describing the impact of the subject on [their] field. Academic work can be quite significant before authors of the secondary lit catch on and this notability criterion is meant to account for that. Central and Adams (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Central and Adams, I am not at all convinced that that is the reason we have it. I think we have it because it's a thing that counts in some parts of academia at some points--in tenure and promotion. I had a look through the talk page archives of PROF, and what is obvious to me is (I'm summarizing from a few comments by editors like DGG and Randykitty--I cannot claim to have done a comprehensive survey) that any index is a rough guide (and that's still in PROF, at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics), and that writing an article based on those metrics is, ahem, difficult. Plus, your argument is kind of contradictory. If a scholar is cited, then one should expect the citation to say something meaningful about the research or the scholar that was cited, unless, unless! we're just refbombing, like we do in certain disciplines (not mine). Having read quite a few sociology articles recently I'm even less infatuated with indices, and on top of that are the problems noted in various talk page discussions with Google Scholar. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • In the sciences authors are cited in research articles to acknowledge their original results, not to discuss the results or explain their meaning or impact. Those things are the province of expository writing rather than research. Scientists can have astonishing impacts on their field without being discussed in expository or other kinds of secondary writing. In the social sciences and humanities it's necessary to discuss these things in actual research because there's no epistemological consensus, but this doesn't happen in the sciences. No question that indicies are a rough guide, but I guess that's why we're having this discussion! Central and Adams (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think you have a slightly optimistic view of the academic publishing industry. And I'm sorry, but about differing epistemologies leading to different kinds of consensus, I think you are wrong. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see an h-index argument--I see a citation, not an argument. I do see a counter argument to that claim. What I see is a resume without any secondary sources; primary/company links and Wikipedia articles don't count. As a BLP, it's so poorly verified that it should be sent back to draft space, and I do not see how this passes PROF, let alone the GNG. This shouldn't have been moved into mainspace. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. (Coming here after Drmies' ping). I currently don't have the time to look into this in great detail, just marking a few points. The citation record, as observed by David Epstein is more than solid. On the other hand, that seems to be most of what we have for an article, as I find the awards less than impressive. Looks like an "up-and-coming" scientist, but associate profs are not very often found notable yet. If some independent sources would come up on which an article can be based, I'd !vote "keep". --Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha Randykitty, I figured you would say something along those lines--a position between your professional hard data and the requirements of secondary sourcing in the liberal arts way. Thanks for stopping by! Drmies (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Very, very strong h-index metric, which strongly indicates her importance to her field—WP:PROF#C1. Anwegmann (talk) 02:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  29 is not very, very strong. Athel cb (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong delete. Sorry, but the claims very strong h-index are not verifiable. I did the standard test of looking at the top people cited in the areas she lists in her Google Scholar page. The lowest cited area is "System bioinformatics" where she is competitive and 10th on the list. However, in her other areas she is not close to competitive. Her awards are all minor or junior (we really should say not to include them and the Stanford/Elsevier lists). Without significant acknowledgement of her by the wider community it is wP:TOOSOON. A strong start, but not enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm trying one more relist even though the pool of editors wanting to comment on articles on academics in AFD is limited. But I don't see a reconcilation or consensus here, either they meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#C1 or they don't.

Just as an aside, are articles for academics ever redirected to their institution in case they develop a more substantial profile in years to come? I haven't seen that proposed but thought I'd throw that out as an ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because if the article on the institution includes a list of its professors, it would only be a list of the bluelinked professors. So if we redirected, the article wouldn't mention the redirect target at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per David Eppstein, especially "Six publications with triple-digit citation counts" a substantial count that is enough to pass NPROF criteria in her field. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but "Six publications with triple-digit citation counts" is nothing special. The other Portuguese scientist I mentioned has 30. Athel cb (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Eppstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak keep. Passes #C1 of WP:NPROF to my eyes. I don't usually recommend keeping associate professors (which is the "weak" part) but the sheer number of citations of her work alone is impressive, as is the number of citations that her most-cited papers have received. As I keep saying, passing one criterion is enough to meet the standard. Qflib (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to get this lost AfD back in the system
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]