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

Gennady Degtyarev (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 on an academic created directly in main after being declined once at AfC. Beyond an unsourced statement about creating new naval equipment, the only suggestion of notability is academic participation in D-SELF theory, a very low citation neologism created in 1989. Citations and awards don't pass WP:NPROF and there is nothing for general notability here or via a search. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have no evidence of WP:PROF notability, except maybe through #C2 and the "Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation". We have no sourcing for this (nor for most of the article content) so I cannot tell whether this award was handed out indiscriminately to many people or as a high honor to a very limited number of people. Without that information I do not feel confident using it as the only basis for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics (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 international non-governmental research institute for physical sciences fails to meet NCORP and is full of Original research. BoraVoro (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, Asia, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Living Textbook of Hand Surgery (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 cannot find any indication that this specific work passes GNG or NBOOK. However, the "Living Textbooks" as a platform (which this was the launch of) might. If there are sources for that this could be turned into an article on that, but I am not sure there even are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Science. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't find anything that would substantiate the wiki-notability of this book itself. It might be possible to describe the "living textbooks" platform/series at German National Library of Medicine. XOR'easter (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I see literally zero secondary coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2025 (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]

Hard core chemistry? Inorganic chemistry is taught in high school, you don't even get big into the organic until post-secondary levels of schooling. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are evenly divided here between editors advocating Keep and those supporting Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep base on the title, this can be a useful and informative list so it's satisfy WP:LISTPURP. Though the article is in garbage shape as of now. Someone whose familiar with chemistry should fix it. Deleting this is a bit of an overkill, an alternative to this is draftfying it until someone fix it. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for providing no value beyond Category:Inorganic reactions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Any substance that doesn't contain carbon would be inorganic... I'm not sure this list serves a purpose. Unsourced, no discussion as to why these are important reactions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possibly rename and improve (this is actually a list of types of reactions). The Category:Inorganic reactions is very incomplete, hence the list does serve a purpose, just as a similar list for organic reactions. Some of the types of reactions in this list can be actually qualified as "organic" (the distinction is not always clear), but I think this does not invalidate the list. My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Inorganic reactions' parent category, Category:Inorganic chemistry, states Inorganic chemistry is a catch-all discipline that covers everything in chemistry that is not organic chemistry. Hence there should be minimal overlap between List of inorganic reactions and Category:Organic reactions. Would expanding Category:Inorganic reactions address your concerns re: needing the list for navigation purposes? Preimage (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. I agree: there can be an overlap, and improving the navigation would help. My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repair. (reinstated) Rambling comments: I contributed to the article, so I am biased I guess. The list has an organic or organometallic-homogeneous catalysis slant. As others imply above, even the definition of "inorganic" is debatable. As I have explained before, there are very few card-carrying inorganic editors, so few are qualified to build it out. The list doesn't hurt anyone. It has some questionable and ambiguous classifications, but that is true for many lists. Having a crude article makes it easier clean it up. There are lots of books on inorganic reaction mechanisms (Wilkins, venerable Basolo and Pearson, Hartwig, etc), and these provide a framework to build on. We might even transform the article into "inorganic reaction mechanisms". --Smokefoot (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(note: this was originally in reply to a comment that has since been removed) seems like you've voted above already, would you like to strike the old one? Cheers! has been revised YuniToumei (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC); edited 20:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm with Team TNT. If you're willing to give a try at rescuing this mess, do so immediately and then ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2025 (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)