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

FBI Victims Identification Project (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)

Redirect into FBI Laboratory. One of many projects within the FBI Laboratory with a dearth of secondary coverage in WP:RS that don't establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goki Eda (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)

Notability issue. Xegma(talk) 09:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Japan, Singapore, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am concerned that this editor (Bulklana is just copying and pasting uncritically from university websites, on this and other articles.) In this specific case, I don't believe the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and heavily-cited research publications. This needs cleanup to remove or better source the promotional description of his research and make the rest look less like a resume, but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF. I know the article is not perfect, but I am sure it deserves to be on wikipedia Bulklana (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Humphreys (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:NBIO and WP:NPROF among others. All sources seem to be to those non-compliant with WP:FRIND. Moreover, quite a few of them are to the subject himself. jps (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Science, and Astronomy. jps (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only case for notability appears to be as a fringe theorist. But per WP:FRINGE and WP:V, we need reliable sources in mainstream sources to provide a neutral mainstream view on these theories, and I found none. If we had enough reliable (mainstream) reviews of his book we could retarget this as an article about the book with a redirect from his name, but I didn't find any of those either. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment YEC isn't "fringe" in any meaningful sense, and Young Earth creationism doesn't label it as such; it's a religious perspective, and WP:FRINGE directly addresses this: For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Thus, comments on his scientific ideas by theologians would be addressing the topic directly and potentially count towards notability, and the search can't stop with scientists. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Being at odds with pretty much all sciences it touches" is a meaningful sense of "fringe". So, yes, YEC is very much fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism... all are at odds with pretty much all the sciences they touch. But they're not fringe because fringe is science absent religion, rather than religious perspectives on scientific topics. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:FRINGE is not science absent religion. I promise you. If you disagree, go ask around and see if there is consensus for your position. jps (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Louisiana, Michigan, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic airway-digestive inflammatory disease (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 one source in this very old stub, and that is to a self help book that coined this term. I found it mentioned just a few times by similarly non medical texts, e.g. [1] which is about fitness and diet. Scholar comes up blank. Medical texts do not recognize this. The page lacks WP:MEDRS because they don't exist. At best this is a syndrome and not a disease, but as it stands there is no subject here. The opening claim appears fringe and has been unsourced for 17 years. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Made-up syndrome by one set of authors selling their cure. This text in the article definitely takes it into fringe land CAID can also impact organs beyond the respiratory (breathing) and digestive systems. Heart disease, stroke, infertility, painful headaches and chronic fatigue syndrome may be linked to CAID. Search finds discussion of some connections between some respiratory and GI illnesses, but nothing approaching a defined syndrome or the claims in this article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Textbook nonexistent diagnosis conjured up by alt-med quacks. Not one mention in Google Scholar (!) let alone any reputable database; only mentions on the open web are this article, WP mirrors, and the book by the authors cited in the article (the only reference). User who created the page has 2 edits, both to this article. There is a real diagnosis called CAID (chronic atrial-intestinal dysrhythmia): [2] but it is unrelated. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not for diseases made up one day. XOR'easter (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence that this exists. Mgp28 (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yet another fringe idea trying to get around that we have never published original research. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan Singh Kothari (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)

BLP of an engineer created by a likely meatpuppet. Contains swathes of unsourced claims and no clear claim of notability despite many expansive statements. Mccapra (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Engineering, and Indiana. Mccapra (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no sign of notability. His LinkedIn says "refer wikipedia" for information so this is likely some attempt to promote. Surprised it survived this long. C F A 💬 22:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rajasthan, Louisiana, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think a distinguished undergraduate alumni award [3] is enough and that's all I can find of any note. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete -- within the huge amount of cruft there's the one distinguished alum award which counts towards notability; a second piece of evidence at that level would be enough to push me over the line to keep. If it does do that, I'll probably just burn the current prose and start again. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Action Memorandum 235 (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)

Delete or redirect to Presidency of John F. Kennedy as WP:AtD. One of hundreds of executive actions by President John Kennedy, not all of which have notability as evidenced by their WP:LASTING significance of WP:SIGCOV. There are some passing references [4] [5] in books, but nothing that justifies a standalone article or that can't be covered in better context in the redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect There's literally no content or secondary sources here, just the text that could be at Wikisource. Next time try PROD or a bold BLAR and see if anyone objects. Reywas92^Talk 16:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BioSense (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:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV in secondary or tertiary sources to establish independent notability. A couple passing, definitional, mentions in books, but not enough for this encyclopedia. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral WP:SIGCOV might apply. I found some mentions that are more-than-passing-mentions that are outside of cdc.gov, including this news article https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/cdc-realign-biosense-focus-most-populous-cities-0 and this GAO report https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-100.pdf. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first I would classify as WP:ROUTINE of budget requests. To the second, one GAO report in 25 years would speak to its non-notability. Longhornsg (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this page was up for deletion. I would recommend you keep it. I think there are actually many articles on this topic as a major CDC initiative for syndromic surveillance including in depth reviews for instance several:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15714629/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28692386/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16177704/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16177687/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19635001/

Examples of use in literature

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21128815/

I think probably less likely to receive mention in popular press but certainly not in academic press. I think the nomination as passing mentions would be disingenuous most the articles discuss the system extensively. All are published in reputable journals for the field.

in particular popular medical articles

e.g. JAMA https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/183185

and Lancet infectious disease also have covered issues with the program

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(06)70485-6/abstract Dotingacademic (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also in some popular media; but rarely

E.g.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/04/syndromic-surveillance-useful-to-track-pandemics-like-covid-19.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114186869834793251

Or

Judith Graham Ronald Kotulak, T. staff reporters. (2004). Bioterror detectors go high-tech ; Research focuses on earlier warning: Chicago Final Edition. Chicago Tribune available through proquest. Dotingacademic (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also in the Scientist Biosense or Biononsense,

https://www.proquest.com/docview/200056066

Describes the shortcomings - misflagged outbreaks etc. Dotingacademic (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more closure opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the company per above comments has received some media coverage. Might be notable and some new sources might be added too. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate