Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Funga

Funga (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 propose merging to Mycobiota because both pages are lacking information, and are both terms regarding the biodiversity of fungi within a specific area - funga now has support from the Fungal Conservation Commitee - I believe due to the lack of information it is better to merge these articles, instead of deleting Mycobiota Kirby123456 (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Science. Kirby123456 (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I get the impression that the current subject is not the subject of the article deleted after the first nomination in 2006 (which was about a neologism). No opinion on the merger. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge as duplicate article about something with multiple names. Mycobiota is far more common than funga in Google Ngrams results after c. 1990. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Science and technology in Taiwan

Science and technology in Taiwan (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)

Almost entirely AI-generated article (was a redirect until 2025, when the current content was dropped in). Heavy on WP:SYNTH, with many sections just citing lists of scientists or statistics without ever referring to a source that talks about science in Taiwan as a single topic. Fails WP:NEWLLM. We have Economy of Taiwan and National Science and Technology Council (Taiwan) if there is anything here that could be merged, but I would prefer a delete so as not to encourage more unreviewed AI use. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Taiwan. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Suspected AI-generated articles. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete due to LLM use. Trying to salvage LLM text is hazardous and I don't think it's worthwhile here. No prejudice to creation of a new version written by humans. M kuhner (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per M kuhner. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as failing NOLLM, oppose merging because that would also fail NOLLM. No comment on notability, but the currently existing articles should cover the topic. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Gnathifera

Gnathifera (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)

Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic_with_only_one_other_topic, this page is not necessary with only two links. "Gnathifera (Spiralia)" is the clear primary topic by pageview count , so that page should be moved to just "Gnathifera". Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, Biology, Organisms, and Disambiguations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as wrong venue. Discussion about what article is the primary topic should take place through a requested move, not at AfD. Zeibgeist (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Enlil (heliospheric model)

Enlil (heliospheric model) (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 that was previously WP:BLAR as a redirect to Heliosphere#Structure on March 23rd. This was reverted on April 1st. The editor who redirected and the redirect editor opened a discussion on the talk page, but minimal input from involved editors there. Page currently has tags for AI and notability. Rather than leaving this hanging around much longer I am sending it to AfD for a wider discussion. Note: I am not voting as I do not know this science. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Courtesy pings of involved editors @CoronalMassAffection, Revolving Doormat, Mykhal, and 0xReflektor: Ldm1954 (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Heliosphere and add a human-written summary of heliospheric models including Enlil. Fails WP:SIGCOV. For context, Enlil is one of many different models of the inner heliosphere used to propagate solar wind, CMEs, etc. from the upper corona to Earth and beyond. Enlil is perhaps the most widely known because it is relevant outside of academic research as one component of the WSA-Enlil model used by the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center to provide space weather forecasts useful for affected industries, aurora chasers, etc. (MacNeice et al., 2018, ref 9 in the article, gives a comprehensive overview of the various models designed to provide solar wind forecasts. Table 1 therein gives 15 corona + inner heliosphere models that do not use Enlil at all.)

From my experience, the breadth of the likely LLM-aggregated sample of sources covering Enlil provided in the article is representative of the actual breadth of Enlil sources out there; that is, most secondary sources are either press releases about space weather/aurora or academic papers that mention Enlil as one component of a larger global solar wind model being studied (e.g., WSA-Enlil, WSA-Enlil+Cone, MAS-Enlil). I do not believe that this amounts to significant coverage sufficient to justify an article dedicated to Enlil alone. However, I think that Enlil is notable enough to cover together with other models in Heliosphere or something like Heliospheric models because such models, when coupled with corona and CME models, are an important tool for studying and predicting conditions in the heliosphere and, when considered together, do receive significant coverage.

(As a side note, I would justify redirecting Wang-Sheeley-Arge model – the article on the aforementioned WSA model used in WSA-Enlil, also created by User:0xReflektor – to Solar corona using a similar justification.) CoronalMassAffection (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge any relevant content with Heliosphere#Structure so that some of the worthwhile content is kept--aware some of it may be LLM generated but that doesn't mean with verifiable sources that it isn't worth preserving and re-written. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Bashorun Olalekan

Bashorun Olalekan (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:NPROF. 🄻🄰 17:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Nigeria. 🄻🄰 17:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment, this is a very poor page, with some errors including when he was Provost. Embarrassingly, Grokopedia is way better, despite not being RS. I see no pass of WP:NPROF, but there are enough references in the Grokopedia article which are "real", not hallucinations, that he might pass WP:GNG. I am not going to vote yet, and might never.Ldm1954 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Science tourism

Science tourism (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)

Largely unencyclopedic article, pretty clear case of WP:NOTDB. Seems like something that should be on wikivoyage. OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Travel and tourism, Science, and Technology. OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, this seems to run afoul of WP:NOTTRAVEL, being something like a list of suggested science-related tourist spots, rather than an article about "science tourism" itself. I don't see anything salvageable here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation. Damn, as someone who enjoys science tourism and these kinds of sites, I was hoping this would be a good page that would be a valid navigational list, but it's really bad. The first section is a random selection from List of science museums that doesn't add much, and then I had to delete the list of US national labs since although several technically have limited tours, none are actually tourist destinations nor was there context about such. Not all of the observatories listed are actually able to be regularly visted by the public, and it's otherwise very incomplete. The Universities section is incredibly generic and pointless, and the "Other" is embarassingly useless by not even saying where these random selections of things are! But LOL about the nomination statement, after writing this I looked at the edit history and the page was literally copied from https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Science_tourism in 2018; this doesn't belong here. Reywas92^Talk 04:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Keep and stubify as it has been improved with sources that can justify an article, but I would like to delete the list content that was copied from Wikivoyage. Reywas92^Talk 14:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment The news media does use the phrase "science tourism" https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/charlotte/news/2024/08/12/north-carolina-science-trail-science-tourism- https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20241021-are-you-really-helping-when-you-join-an-expedition-tour https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/travel/science-tourism-cern-fermilab.html however this isn't an article like Space tourism, just a pointless list since every science museum, research facility, or trip could be put on it . Dream Focus 07:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 07:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of science museums. There is probably space for an article on this topic, but so far this is not it, and it is better to be redirected until a real article is done. --cyclopia^speak! 10:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'd specifically oppose this. There's no information about science tourism at the destination, so it's a misleading redirect. Someone searching for this would presumably (and should) be expecting some sort of encyclopedic information about the topic, but that's not present at the proposed target. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think Science museum would be a better redirect target, and it could include a bit about visitor centers or tours of other sites that aren't strictly museums. — Reywas92^Talk 19:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of science museums and allow recreation if a fair article can be created. Shankargb (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Soft redirect as {{wikivoyage redirect}} and merge (if necessary) to Wikivoyage:Science tourism until such a time that sources are collected or exist that allow a more enyclopedic article. Seems to cover all the concerns presented. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Lundberg, Erik; Persson, Maria; Jernsand, Eva Maria (2022). "Science tourism: A conceptual development". Tourism, Knowledge and Learning. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. pp. 26–39. doi:10.4324/9781003293316-3. ISBN 978-1-032-27488-1. Retrieved 2026-06-26.

     The article notes: "Science tourism is defined as an activity in which individuals travel, outside of their home environment, “to learn about or participate in science” (Packer, 2015, p.930), or more specifically, as tourism where “science, scientific knowledge, and/or engagement in scientific research” (Räikkönen et al., 2021, p.2) is the core of tourists’ motivation and experiences (Räik-könen et al., 2019; Räikkönen etal., 2021). Science tourism is most often depicted as a niche or special interest tourism within other forms of tourism, such as exploration and adventure tourism, cultural tourism, volunteer tourism, nature-based tourism, ecotourism or learning and educational tourism (Mao & Bourlon, 2011; Packer, 2015; Räikkönen et al., 2021)."

  2. Packer, Jan (2015). "Science Tourism". In Gunstone, Richard (ed.). Encyclopedia of Science Education. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 930–932. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0_337. ISBN 978-94-007-2150-0.

     The article notes: "Science tourism is travel outside one’s usual environment to learn about or participate in science. It includes specific types of tourism that are motivated by an interest in science, visitation of attractions that present science, travel to sites or events of scientific significance, science volunteer tourism, and school science field trips. ... Other types of special interest tourism with a science focus are also emerging. For example, space tourism offers opportunities for recreational space travel that may involve not only learning science but also participating in research activities while in orbit. Another emerging form of tourism known as “last chance tourism” involves traveling to places that are threatened by environmental factors such as climate change or overpopulation, in order to experience and learn about these places before it is “too late.” ... Tourists increasingly search for unusual and unique experiences. These may include travel to sites of scientific significance, travel to witness science phenomena, or travel to attend science events. Examples of significant sites are the Galapagos Islands, where visitors can follow in the footsteps of Charles Darwin; the Kennedy Space Center, where visitors can take a tour of NASA’s launch sites and even view a launch; and the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), where visitors can learn about the fundamental research done at the world’s largest particle physics laboratory."

  3. Räikkönen, Juulia; Grénman, Miia; Rouhiainen, Henna; Honkanen, Antti; Sääksjärvi, Ilari E (2021). "Conceptualizing nature-based science tourism: a case study of Seili Island, Finland". Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 31. doi:10.1080/09669582.2021.1948553.

     The article notes: "In contrast, science tourism is leisure tourism in which science, scientific knowledge, and/or engagement in scientific research are essential for tourist motivation and tourism experiences (Räikkönen et al., 2019). Science tourism is an extension of educational tourism that developed from the Grand Tours of the 17th–19th centuries (Ritchie et al., Citation2003). Here, we follow and further conceptualize this latter approach and address nature-based science tourism in light of tourist motivation."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow scientific tourism to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I expanded the article with these sources. Cunard (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  • What about merging this to Tourism#Forms of tourism alongside the sections for space, water, and winter, or even turning List of adjectival tourisms#Science and education into a prose section? This is good but I think the entire rest of the article should still be deleted, and this is just another selection of examples. There's also nature tourism and other pages that these sources relate to. — Reywas92^Talk 14:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
    • I think there is enough content in the sources to support a standalone article. The encyclopedia entry for science tourism in Packer 2015 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPacker2015 (help) is 747 words. The other two sources I listed also discuss science tourism in extensive detail. There are many other sources in a Google Scholar search that I didn't list here. Cunard (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Cunard. WP:HEY. Thanks to the editor! (I stroke my previous !vote above) --cyclopia^speak! 12:03, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. Good rescue by Cunard. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The article now has reliable, independent sources which pass WP:GNG The recent improvement show the topic is encyclopedic and worth keeping. Staticspector (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with others, it passes the general notability guidelines now. Dream Focus 02:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY, it can still use improvement, but the topic is obviously encyclopedic and the issues are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:23, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

FISEC

FISEC (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)

Doing a cursory search on the internet, this appears to lack any form of significance that would qualify it under the WP:GNG. Additionally, this article merely covers a timeline and the group objectives, failing to show any notability throughout. A person of sorts (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. A person of sorts (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, Education, and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I found a 1992 paper, but since that has zero cites it indicates minimal to no attention by the community. Hence a very clear delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to European Federation of Food Science and Technology. FISEC was that federation's student council, so the title is a plausible search term. The 1992 source above is a short item in Food Control of uncertain independence, not significant independent coverage, and nothing else found meets WP:NORG. A short sourced line at the target would help, so the redirect points to content that actually names it. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More supports for the redirect....?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• I also would support a redirect, considering if it's a possible connection I would see it as reasonable.A person of sorts (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Science & Theology News

Science & Theology News (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)

Newspaper isn't notable. Article lacks sources. Could be merged with Karl W. Giberson. Nothing turned up on Google about this paper. Eric Schucht (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and News media. Eric Schucht (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Was a WP:BEFORE done of offline sources? Because given the era this one was issued in I don't think sources would show up on Google. I am getting a lot of hits for this in a search of some databases but I don't have time to sort through them right now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: No a WP:BEFORE was not done. Look at the rapid number of AFD nominations in minutes of one another. Additionally, "nothing comes up in google" is claimed, but then when I google "stuff comes up" on many of these. Clearly the searches being done if done at all are not done competently.4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Templeton Foundation#Templeton Press for now. There is some independent coverage, and it might be possible to have a standalone page. At the very least we can cover it in a subsection of the organization that publishes it. The book McLaren, Robert Bruce (2008). Religious Foundations for Global Ethics. Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 216. ISBN 9780131484726. states it is one of the more significant activities of this non-profit, so it makes sense to cover it there.4meter4 (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 21:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further supports for the merger....?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 04:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Merger works for me. I support it! Eric Schucht (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge (and a redirect) to Templeton Foundation#Templeton Press as suggested by 4meter4 - not able to find much coverage for standalone article. Asteramellus (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2026 (UTC)