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

Isochem

Isochem (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 company is a wholly owned subsidiary PMC Group International which does not have a wiki page or non-primary articles on it by reliable publications. of https://www.chemanager-online.com/en/news/pmc-buys-isochems-pharma-business Mixmon (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France. Owen× ☎ 12:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep No valid reason to delete. You have not proved that Isochem itself fails GNG. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep (but improve): Some news about this company could be found, mostly dealing with its buyout by PMC: [1], [2]. That might be just barely enough to meet WP:NCORP. I don't read/speak French, so someone who is able to parse French sources might be able to vet sources better than me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

List of important publications in cryptography

List of important publications in cryptography (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)

Inherently original research. Compare WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in computer science (2nd nomination). Was previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security but I think this is worth a reevaluation a decade later. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Mathematics, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete such a list can never have a policy-compliant WP:LISTCRIT because "importance" is subjective. BrigadierG (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: One alternative is a move to List of publications in cryptography without "important", while applying Wikipedia notability as the WP:LISTCRIT.
  Also, the same discussion is applicable to List of important publications in science, List of important publications in chemistry, List of important publications in medicine, List of important publications in mathematics, List of important publications in physics, List of important publications in statistics, List of important publications in data science, List of important publications in geology, List of important publications in economics, List of important publications in philosophy, and List of important publications in pedagogy. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • This is not workable, few individual publications have an article so it would be unclear what should be listed. Reywas92^Talk 20:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    • @Reywas92: I see dozens of the entries in these lists with standalone Wikipedia articles. That's more than enough and is a clear criterion. See List of important publications in mathematics, List of important publications in physics, and List of important publications in economics for example. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
      Oh sorry! If you meant cryptography specifically, then yes there are too few. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

      It seems like pretty much all of these date from the really early days of Wikipedia, well before the project had clearly defined guidance for list criteria. I don't think any of them are very good articles and probably would be in favour of a healthy dose of WP:TNT. I think List of publications of X with a notability criteria is the way to go - but that can't happen without blowing up all of these articles and starting over. BrigadierG (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

      Yes, I meant the nominated article but most others are also short on wikilinks. Even those that have articles, though, are almost all books or very old or written by the most famous scientists. Practically no journal articles would ever have an article. I don't think a list of primarily textbooks would be good content for a list of publications. However, if the criteria is simply being a publication with a WP article, that could also end up including books that aren't important yet someone happened to find some reviews and write and article. While I agree that "important" is subjective, are there actually any problems with these lists? Have people been arguing about what should be on them at all? Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

      I think a book can meet the relevant wiki-notability standard and deserve an article without being epochal. XOR'easter (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  There's a separate article at Bibliography of cryptography (which I moved from Books on cryptography). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. If the intent is to delete based on the reasons above then there needs to be a broader discussion on lists like this in general. Picking them off one by one is not the way to go. That said, we HAVE criteria to determine if an article is notable and belongs on the list. If there is a reliable independent secondary source that says that it is notable then it should be on the list. Otherwise no. Simple as that. Cryptology is a mature and distinct enough field of study that it absolutely warrants a list like this if lists like this are deemed worthy to exist based on broader discussion. Epachamo (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that one source saying that a publication is noteworthy will always be enough. Plenty of books, papers, etc., get recommended as "further reading" at the end of textbook chapters. That's a degree of recognition, for sure, but it's a long way from "this paper won the authors a Nobel Prize". XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment As written, this list is under-sourced synth-cruft based on personal opinion. I'd be inclined to delete it. However, I think we need a more broad discussion (an RfC or something of that sort) about whether lists like these are feasible and how to do them correctly. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting Engineering

Interesting Engineering (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)

Written extremely like an advertisement and has many other problems. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Science, Engineering, Transportation, Websites, Turkey, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete good web presence, but the only mentions of it I can find are on places like Reddit. The article trying to WP:INHERIT notability from other news outlets that have cited it is telling. BrigadierG (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation

Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation (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 probably created by students in the group of the originator of the algorithm. All relevant refs to the method are from one group, there are no secondary sources. It should be trimmed down to a paragraph or two and merged into Dynamical mean-field theory since it is a variant of that very well established and used approach. We should not have separate articles on every minor DFT variant IMO. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Merge & Redirect per nom. Likely COI issue. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Ldm1954: The TMDCA is a well established method that warrants a page of it's own. It introduces both spatial correlations and order parameter that is currently not available in any mean-field theory, including the dynamical mean field theory. It is just as saying that the page for the

  Coherent Potential Approximation and dynamical mean-field theory should be merged. Both these two approximations are exactly the same at the thermodynamical limit, but focused on different aspects of the physics. I respectfully disagree with the notion of merging them and do not support it. SrihariKastuar (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — SrihariKastuar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Ldm1954: Both the DMFT and TMDCA are robust approximations that address some of the most challenging problems in condensed matter physics, and they truly merit recognition. Regarding the citations, they're not limited to just one group. In fact, there are seven additional citations from various other groups. As you might be aware, it's common for the initial citations of a method in physics and in science in general to have the imprint of the developer, much like what you see with the DMFT citation, for example, where 95% of the current citations on its page are from the original group. CEE (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: just to add every human being, including yourself has some level of COI. While I have never used the TMDCA before, I am a science enthusiast who appreciates the hard work and dedication of people to solving scientific problems. Please, let's move past this to focus on other things. SrihariKastuar (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not what COI means here. XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Click both link and just write the TMDca approach is very good tools to understand the ground state properties etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.253.44 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — This comment was transferred from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinedu Ekuma where it was misplaced; I offer no comment as to its value, nor do I have my own opinion or comment on this nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment It would really help if the page author identified the three best sources, i.e., three peer-reviewed publications that provide in-depth discussion of the technique but were not written by its original inventors. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  @XOR'easter: thanks for the clarifications. There are over 100 combined independent citations using one form of the typical medium or the other. I will list some of them below in no particular order:

  1. https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.025003 - Nice review of modern physics discussing the importance of nonlocal correlations

  2. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.036602

  3. https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.063621

  4. https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.109.094203

  5. https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.106.214205

  6. https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.104.165102 CEE (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  I said three, not six.

  The problem is that we are all volunteers here, and volunteer time is a scarce resource — even more so for specialized, technical topics. What we are trying to evaluate here is, first, whether this subject is more than the pet project of a single research group, and second, if so, whether giving it a whole page to itself is organizationally the best move. Plenty of worthy ideas pass the first but fail the second! It can make more sense to describe a technique in the larger article on the older technique of which it is a variant, or in the article on the phenomenon it was invented to analyze, etc. If there were a Rev. Mod. Phys. article that was straight-up titled "Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation", that would be a pretty strong argument for having a page here. On the other hand, if all the review article says on the subject is a mention to the effect that densities of states and critical disorder strengths can be obtained through cluster extensions of these theories (Jarrell and Krishnamurthy, 2001; Ekuma et al., 2014; Terletska et al., 2014), that's not good evidence the topic needs its own article here.

  I have written an introductory guide for physicists trying to contribute to Wikipedia that may be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  XOR'easter (talk) Thanks for the edits and comments, and for overwhelming you with many references. Manuscript titles in physics generally don't follow such nomenclature for being straight up titled "Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation".

  There is actually a review of modern physics on this, which is already cited, see for example:

  1. https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.1027.

  2. See also Annals of physics, which is generally a semi-review journal at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003491621000865 CEE (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  That RMP article is from 2005; I'm pretty sure it can't support the existence of a page here about a technique introduced in 2014. References about the general topic area can be used as background for an article on a more specific concept, but we need in-depth coverage of the specific concept itself.

  The Annals of Physics paper seems to have only a brief mention of TMDCA specifically. It also has authors in common with the Phys. Rev. B paper that introduced TMDCA, so it's not really an independent source. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• TMDCA is really important for understanding how materials behave when they have strong internal interactions and some disorder. It's like studying a single piece of a big, complicated machine to understand how the entire machine works. This method gives a much clearer view of these complex systems than previous approaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustina Tiara (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Faustina Tiara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  At the risk of sounding stuffily bureaucratic, that argument is not grounded in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We can't go by your opinion that TMDCA is important; we need evidence more solid than that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• The TMDCA methodology has practical implications, as evidenced by its success in explaining experimental observations in materials like MoS2, PbSe, and PbTe. Given its unique contributions and the ongoing research it inspires, the TMDCA holds substantial academic value and should be preserved for its educational and scientific merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilson Sunday E (talk • contribs) 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Wilson Sunday E (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• keep TMDCA looks an interesting approach in computational materials science. It deals with understanding the ground-state properties of many-body strongly correlated electrons, which are usually not considered in other approximations. For further understanding of the theory and concept of TMDCA approach it is good to refer to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dprai1985 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Dprai1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment. See also the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinedu Ekuma on a biography by the same cluster of editors on an author of many of the references of this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: As both the nominator and one of the grey-haired solid-state academics who have reviewed this, let me add some context to try and explain a bit more about why I nominated this. My apologies in advance for jargonese and being a bit technical.
  • This is Wikipedia, we don't include everything, WP:NOT. We summarize key information, we are not a textbook.
  • Balance is needed. For instance Hybrid functional has one concise page within which both B3LYP and PBE0 only have one paragraph each. There are many tens of thousands of papers where those have been used, in my opinion one paragraph is appropriate.
  • The article Density functional theory is longer, and similarly is not excessive on anything. The only mention of GGA is an internal link within this article to Density functional theory#Approximations (exchange–correlation functionals). Again, the number of publications is vast.
  • Codes such as VASP or WIEN2k have modest pages, see also the software list.
  • The community has already made some key choices about the main topics, see Template:Electronic structure methods. I am reluctant to bloat this.

Hopefully nobody will try and claim comparable notability to any of the above for this approach. It merits mention, but merged into one of the existing large branches of ab-initio methods not as a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect. This is way too niche for a standalone article, it merited a single sentence in the RMP review. The only reason there exists an extensive article about it here is COI, as indicated by the WP:SPA army. Tercer (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Tercer (talk) I respectfully disagree with your perspective. It seems we may be encountering a situation of selective emphasis. As indicated by the title, the focus was intended to cover various approaches, not just one. There are numerous review articles on this topic, and the one you've referenced is only one among many. For instance, consider this dedicated article, which might offer a more comprehensive view on the approach: https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.1027. gmp001 (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm mystified about how a review from 2005 could possibly be relevant for a technique invented in 2014. Tercer (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect. After the discussion here and doing a literature search on my own, I agree with the comment just above. At present, the sourcing just doesn't support having a dedicated article. The state of the field would be better represented by a broader article that discusses the various techniques that have been developed, giving some time to each and making it easier to compare and contrast them, rather than delving into the details almost to the point of writing pseudocode. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Chinedu Ekuma

Chinedu Ekuma (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)

Assistant professor with an h-factor of 22 and no notable awards and no notable mentions. Novice editor (his first article) ignored AfC declination and moved to main space, twice deleting COI tags. On new page patrol both notability and COI were tagged and draftified; novice editor removed tags and a moved back to main space. Hence AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Pro forma, pinging @Whpq and @Liance who previously tagged/reviewed versions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I know nothing about Chinedu Ekuma beyond what is in the article, and that does not add up to notability. For a young scientist his career is respectable, but that's not enough. He may become notable in the future, but he's not there yet. Athel cb (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note for any editors reviewing this AFD, the article is an autobiography. See Talk:Chinedu Ekuma. -- Whpq (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotional. I could not locate any independent sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: It seems he's been involved with solar cell research [3]; the innovation might be notable, this professor isn't quite notable yet. Very PROMO and COI doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oaktree b (talk) everyone human being has some level of COI. I do not know of any bio written for anyone where the individual writing it does not have some level of knowledge of the person. Otherwise, how is it even possible to write a bio?? The write was transparent enough to even report COI and asked for the community input SrihariKastuar (talk) SrihariKastuar (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — SrihariKastuar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  ok, he's still not notable as we have no coverage in reliable sources about him. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Assistant professors have rarely had the time to accumulate enough impact to become noted (by others in their field) and therefore notable (to us). The exception would be someone who gets a major international award (the kind that says this person is already a star of the field) or a major media splash for some discovery. I see nothing of the kind here. That would already lead to a weak delete !vote from me, but the self-promotion makes it into a full delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  David Eppstein (talk) I do not think that this is a fair assessment. He spent more than 6 years in the National labs before going to university. Notability is not defined by number of years in a university SrihariKastuar (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC).

  Correct. It is not defined by years of service at all. It is defined by having many papers that are heavily cited relative to others in the same subfield, major and notable international awards, fellowships of major scholarly societies, distinguished professorships, etc. None of which he currently has. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  David Eppstein (talk) how do you know all that? Such information are not always listed on people's bio. He is a member of American Physical Society (you can see this by Googling it), a lifetime member of the National Society of Black Physicists, Sigma Xi, which you can only become a member if you're nominated by another member, etc. Maybe others that I cannot see. CEE (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Membership and fellowship are not the same thing. And we can only operate on the information we can see, not the information we cannot see. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Membership in scientific organizations, however respected, does not in itself satisfy WP:NPROF (please read the criteria). And Sigma Xi literally offers financial incentives (free dues) for recommending others for membership; https://www.sigmaxi.org/members/member-get-a-member. Qflib (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. This individual, even at mid-career, has made significant contributions to the field of computational condensed matter physics, as detailed in his bio. It's worth noting that the challenges associated with such achievements might not be readily apparent to those outside the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmp007 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Gmp007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• keep Prof. Ekuma, is a renowned theoretical Physicist. He has made significant contributions to scientific research, especially in the fields of theoretical physics and materials science. Knowing him about his personal and professional career is great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dprai1985 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Dprai1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment. See also the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation on an article by the same cluster of editors mostly sourced to Ekuma's publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear case of COI and lack of notability, compounded with brazen disregard for the norms. Tercer (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete – The subject does not pass the notability guidelines for academics. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete – This subject is close to satisfying C1 of WP:NPROF given his field of endeavor. If he continues to pubish and gain citations at this rate, a page will likely be merited in the future. However, like most people who are not at the full professor level, he is not there yet. This is a classic case of WP:TOOSOON. Qflib (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Good start towards WP:NPROF C1 notability, in a high citation field, surely WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• delete, not everyone is notable, maybe he will be in the future. Artem.G (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

George Walker (educator)

George Walker (educator) (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 subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC/WP:NSCIENTIST. Third-party (independent, non-primary) sources lending significant in-depth coverage appear not to exist, and are unlikely to crop up in the future. JFHJr (㊟) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, South Africa, Switzerland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Science Redirects for discussion

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate