Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Shortcuts

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:

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.
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

Purge page cache

watch

Science[edit]

Ninovium[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a content fork of Oganesson#Unconfirmed iscovery claims and isotopes of oganesson#Cold fusion, and there is no evidence in any reliable sources of "ninovium" being proposed as a name. Given said lack of sourcing for the name, I propose it be deleted outright, but a case could be made for a plausible redirect. ^Complex/_Rational 22:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^Complex/_Rational 22:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no results for 'ninovium' in google scholar, and just one in google books. Not sure that redirect is needed. Artem.G (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, The topic seems to be distinct enough from Oganesson to warrant its own page. The page should instead be renamed to something more on-topic (1999 Oganesson hoax?), as the name Ninovium does not appear in any contemporary sources. TheWikipedianSheep (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge & redirect to Victor Ninov.TheLongTone (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of German scientists[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens of thousands of entries. We have much more selective categories (by field by century, by field by state,...), and even better-defined sublists such as List of German chemists, there is no need for this overarching uncurated list. Broc (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Science, Lists, and Germany. Broc (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. To be even minimally useful such a list would need to include dates and sub-fields, but even if it had those delete would be the right choice. Athel cb (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by Nobel laureates per capita[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is the most egregious example of OR and synth that I ever saw here. "Population figures are the current values, and the number of laureates is given per 10 million." - why should it be? How a population of today's Hungary relevant for Nobel prizes won by people who were born in 19th or early 20th centuries? (The problem is the same for all countries, the example is about Hungary because out of few refs in this list multiple are about Hungarians.) How does EU have 247 Nobel prizes? Surely people who were born and dead long before EU was created shouldn't count. And like that, the whole list is unsourced OR that should be deleted. Artem.G (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Science, and Lists. Artem.G (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using "current values" and then only using 2018 figures doesn't make sense either. If the values are current why not just use the most recent population value available? 14 October 2019 also seems like an arbitrary cutoff date, especially when there's a column for "Laureates in last 10 years (2014-2023)". If the article is going to be kept it should at least be semi-regularly updated properly. Procyon117 (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but even the updated data would make little sense - why should a population of a modern country be used? Population changed a lot in the last hundred years, but this list divides modern population by historical number of Nobel prize winners. Modern Hungary is not Austria-Hungary, with very different population. No serious source use such numbers, that's a pure OR. Artem.G (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's also definitely an issue. Procyon117 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Nobel laureates by country. My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what exactly do you propose to merge? The whole list is unsourced and OR. Artem.G (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is basic division, not original research. These are not baseless claims that others cannot easily replicate. You can quibble about grouping EU countries, but it's not a basis for deletion. In any case someone has already merged some numbers to List of Nobel laureates by country, so that can be completed, with discussion as appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

God Sent Me[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A self-published autobiography about Selman v. Cobb County School District, with no substantial coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Law, Education, Christianity, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Skeptical Inquirer review is sigcov, so it's untrue that there's none, but if that's it then it would fail notability. It needs at least two. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: There's a review in The Atlanta Jewish Times on pg. 34 of this issue. This would normally be enough, but there's an interview with the author directly above the review, so I don't think this would be independent enough to count towards NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, a very weak keep. Without knowing more about that organization's processes, the independence may be up in the air, but they look like a reputable newspaper and strictly speaking I don't think interviewing the author is a sure sign that it's non independent, they could have simply sought it out. But yeah I won't die on this hill PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Jacobs, Michael (2016-10-21). "Time for a Disclaimer". The Atlanta Jewish Times. Vol. 91, no. 41. Retrieved 2024-07-01 – via Issuu.
  I consider the review to be independent of the subject as it contains negative content. The review notes: "Selman's book is exhaustive and exhausting in its details on the struggle against the sticker, especially in the extensive use of court testimony. Even if he's right, however, Selman is hardly an objective source. His book is not, and does not pretend to be, a dispassionate history. As he says repeatedly, he wants to wake up Americans to the threat of theocracy, but he risks putting some readers to sleep by emphasizing advocacy over information. Still, Selman has created, if not a textbook, an invaluable resource for anyone who wants a reminder that science and religion can coexist, but not in the same classroom."
2. Branch, Glenn (September–October 2015). "A Textbook Case in Georgia Remembered" (PDF). Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 39, no. 5. pp. 59–60. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The review notes: "Selman also understates the role of Kitzmiller v. Dover in forcing the school board to settle. ... God Sent Me is self-published, and the lack of a firm editorial hand is intermittently detectable. Generally following a straight chronological narrative, Selman’s writing is serviceable and often engaging, although there are occasional patches of purple prose: for example at one point he writes, somewhat ridiculously, “The life I was living was in a comfortable but contaminated Petri dish where the leprosy of theocracy was threatening to break out and become epidemic” (17). Fans of Leo Rosten will be amused by Selman’s pervasive use of expressions from Yiddish, accompanied by helpful glosses, although “farblondjet” is oddly spelled as “fablunjet” (175). There is no index and no bibliography, and references appear variously in footnotes and in running text, which is mildly frustrating."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow God Sent Me: A Textbook Case on Evolution vs. Creation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramil Hashimli[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. This is a promotional page create by Atakhanli (the user was blocked-the reason for the blocking was noted that the editor was engaged in paid activities.). There is no nearly enough RS about the subject to establish notability.--Correspondentman (talk) 09:58, 27 June 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 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The {{subst:afd2}} formatting was not fully implemented here; I have fixed this. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Medicine, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see anything here that would satisfy WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:GNG. Qflib (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of British scientists[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens – if not hundreds – thousands entries. We have much more selective categories (by city, by field by century,...), there is no need for this overarching list. Broc (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Science, Lists, and United Kingdom. Broc (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the large number of edits I made to this list a year or so ago (many more than I guessed before checking), I agree with Broc that it is too long and unwieldy, as well as being seriously incomplete, to be useful. Athel cb (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there space for a "list of lists" of British scientists or similar? I think the concept is certainly sound, and it seems to be visited a fair deal.Spiralwidget (talk)
@Spiralwidget: I only find following sub-lists that could be included in a potential Lists of British scientists list-of-lists:
I'm not sure if it makes sense to group them together. Broc (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is far too incomplete, and I don't see how it could ever be kept current. Category:British scientists already exists, change to a redirect if possible. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of American scientists[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens – if not hundreds – thousands entries. We have much more selective categories (by field by century, by field by state,...), there is no need for this overarching list. Broc (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Science, Lists, and United States of America. Broc (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split article into a list of lists, specific to scientific categories, per nom. —Mjks28 (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjks28 this is an alphabetical list, how do you propose to split it? Broc (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose to split the article into different subsections of science; i.e. one for psychologists, one for biologists, one for chemists, etc, and make this article a list of those lists, sort of like Lists of celebrities. Mjks28 (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be an effort completely unrelated to the existing page, as it would not be a simple WP:SPLIT but would require a complete re-evaluation of all entries in the list. Creating lists by topic could be done by simply using categories as a starting point, without needing the existing list. In my opinion the suggested "split" is not feasible. Broc (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In that case, I'd agree with deletion. Mjks28 (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for much the same reasons as for deleting the List of British scientists just above. Athel cb (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While creating new lists for American chemists, etc. may be an appropriate narrowing of topics, I see no need use the existing list in any way. Recreating it as a "Lists of" or other navigation page is welcome, but again it's not necessary to use any of the current page as a starting point. Reywas92^Talk 15:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qiu Shi Science and Technology Prize[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article from 2012 tagged for speedy deletion 12 years later as unambiguous advertising (criterion G11). The article does contain some promotional language (e.g. "The Qiu Shi Foundation was named after the famous Qiu Shi Academy" and "Cha was best known for his industrial prowess, building a multinational textile conglomerate.") but this is mostly a stub article on a Chinese research prize where there are some examples of the awards being newsworthy, see e.g. [1]. However, while the awards have made it into some news articles, I am unable to determine the independence or reliability of these sources, and none of them are cited in the current article. The sources I have found are also much more about the person receiving the award than the award itself. While the promotional language is not severe enough for it to warrant a speedy deletion, I am bringing it to AFD and recommending delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Shen, Alice (2018-09-17). "Science prizes put technological innovation at the heart of China's progress. Prestigious Hong Kong science foundation rewards the brightest and the best". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "A chemist from mainland China has won a major Hong Kong science prize for his leading global research in the field of bio-inspired nano-materials, highlighting China’s pledge to become an innovation hub in its own right. Jiang Lei received a grant of one million yuan (US$150,000) as winner of the Qiu Shi outstanding scientist award at a ceremony on Saturday night at the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei, Anhui province. ... The prestigious Qiu Shi annual awards – qiu shi means “quest for truth” – was established by the late Hong Kong industrialist and philanthropist Cha Chi-ming, father of Payson Cha Mou-sing, in 1994 and features Nobel laureate Yang Zhenning on its judging panel. Previous Qiu Shi Award winners include Tu Youyou, who went on to receive the Nobel Prize in medicine for the discovery of artemisinin, saving millions of lives from malaria; Pan Jianwei, who later led the launch of the world’s first quantum satellite; and Zhang Yitang, who proved a theorem that had eluded mathematicians for more than a century. This year, in addition to the main prize, 12 outstanding young scientists were each awarded a US$90,000 grant, over three years, in recognition of their returning to China, with all their scientific potential, after overseas education or employment. ... This year, the number of recipients of the outstanding young scientist prize grew from 10 to 12, in line with the foundation’s aim of luring more talent back to China."
2. "People's Daily article". People's Daily. 2005. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "“求是杰出科学家奖”由香港求是科技基金会的设,这一基金会由查济民及其家族于 1994 年捐资 2000 万美元设立表基金会奖项其后每年评选颁发次,致力于奖励科技领域有成就的中国科技人才,努力推动国家科技进步,已累计奖励了包括“两弹元助"和"神舟五号功臣在内的数百位杰出科学家和 35 岁的潘建伟教授在量子信息论和量子基本问题等世界学术前沿领域取得的一系列开创性成果,"
  From Google Translate: "The "Qiushi Outstanding Scientist Award" was established by the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation, which was established by Cha Jimin and his family in 1994 with a donation of US$20 million. Chinese scientific and technological talents who have made achievements in the field of science and technology have worked hard to promote national scientific and technological progress, and have accumulated awards to hundreds of outstanding scientists including the "Two Bomb Yuanzhu" and "Shenzhou 5 Heroes" and 35-year-old Professor Pan Jianwei for his research in quantum information theory and A series of pioneering achievements in the world's academic frontier fields such as fundamental quantum problems, ..."
3. Li, Lixia 李丽霞 (2019-09-22). Zhang, Yu 张玉 (ed.). "杨振宁获求是终身成就奖系史上第二位该奖得主" [Yang Zhenning wins Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Award, becoming the second winner in history]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "据悉，香港求是科技基金会1994年由著名爱国实业家査济民先生创立，秉持“雪中送炭”的宗旨，积极坚持和倡导“科学精神，人文情怀”的核心理念。1994至2019年，共有358位在数学、物理、化学、生物医学及工程信息等科技领域中有杰出成就的中国科学家获得基金会奖励。其中“求是终身成就奖”2位，“杰出科学家奖”31位、“杰出青年学者奖”192位、以及 “杰出科技成就集体奖” 133位（涉及16个重大科研项目，如青蒿素、人工合成牛胰岛素、塔里木盆地沙漠治理、铁基超导、神舟飞船等）。"
  From Google Translate: "It is reported that the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation was founded in 1994 by Mr. Cha Jimin, a famous patriotic industrialist. Adhering to the purpose of "providing timely assistance", it actively adheres to and advocates the core concept of "scientific spirit and humanistic feelings". From 1994 to 2019, a total of 358 Chinese scientists with outstanding achievements in science and technology fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, biomedicine and engineering information received awards from the foundation. Among them, there are 2 "Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Awards", 31 "Outstanding Scientist Awards", 192 "Outstanding Young Scholar Awards", and 133 "Outstanding Scientific and Technological Achievement Group Awards" (involving 16 major scientific research projects, such as artemisinin, synthetic bovine insulin, Tarim Basin desert control, iron-based superconductors, Shenzhou spacecraft, etc.)."
4. Zhu, Lixin (2015-09-20). "TCM doctor receives 'grand award' from Qiu Shi foundation". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "An 83-year-old Traditional Chinese Medicine doctor was among recipients of Hong Kong Qiu Shi Science and Technologies Foundation awards on Saturday. ... The Outstanding Scientific Research Team Award went to the Hepatitis E Vaccine team from Xiamen University，which invented the world’s first recombinant Hepatitis E Vaccine and made it available on the market in 2012. Ten other young scientists from seven universities and institutes received the Outstanding Young Scholar Award."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Qiu Shi Awards (simplified Chinese: 求是奖; traditional Chinese: 求是獎) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cunard did a very thorough search of sources. However, I found the nominator's main concern is that many of the sources are about the award ceremonies and awardees, rather than the award itself. While the South China Morning Post and People's Daily sources provided by Cunard are indeed about the award itself, The Beijing News and China Daily sources seem to fall under what the nominator would consider as non-independent sources. Therefore, I found two additional sources from Guang Ming Daily[2] and Ta Kung Pao[3] which documented the founding of the award, and I believe these should be adequate to address the nominator's concerns. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 08:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Engineering[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2017. Nothing to support notability was found in a BEFORE. Checking the other languages pages, several of them have 0 citations. The ones that did, they are not independent/in depth enough for notability support. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Architecture, Science, Engineering, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Various sites to stream the show, a Fandom wiki and mentions of extremes in engineering unrelated to the TV show are about all I can find for sourcing. Rotten Tomatoes has no reviews, nothing... I don't see notability as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Strauss, Gary (2007-08-14). "He engineered himself a job - 'Build It Bigger' host loves his Discovery gig". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The article notes: "Forster, an architect and erstwhile stand-up comic with no TV experience, sent a three-minute audition tape that led to his hiring last year on Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering, a series that became this season's Build It Bigger (tonight, 10 ET/PT). Bigger kicked off the first of 14 episodes in July, with Forster checking out the engineering behind roller coasters. He also has traveled to sites ranging from an Alabama plant that refurbishes Abrams battle tanks to the 100-story-plus World Financial Center, one of the world's tallest buildings, under construction in Shanghai."
2. Ashby, Emily (2023-06-19). "Parents' Guide to Build It Bigger". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The review notes: "That said, the show lacks any special pizzazz, so it probably won't be a must-watch for most kids. But tweens and teens with an interest in engineering or heavy machinery may be intrigued to watch their practical application in the real world. As for content, it's all fairly benign, but keep an ear out for some (bleeped) strong language and plenty of talk about the life-threatening hazards that accompany work on jobs like these."
3. Filucci, Sierra (2022-10-13). "Parents' Guide to Extreme Engineering". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The review notes: "Though Forster attempts to build excitement through each project's many steps, some episodes are less interesting than others. For example, one that detailed an extremely complicated Swedish project called the Hallandsas Ridge Tunnel is dull despite the narrator's enthusiasm and the pre-commercial break cliffhangers (what will happen after the dynamite blast to that wall?!)."
4. Johnson, Eric (2004-07-28). "Long Beach Port Called Extreme - Television: Discovery Channel Airing Documentary on Our Seaport tonight.long Beach Port Called Extreme - Television: Discovery Channel Airing Documentary on Our Seaport Tonight". Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The article notes: "The Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering series chronicles engineering feats on a massive scale. Things don't get much more massive or extreme than at the Port of Long Beach, which is why a filming crew for the channel spent a week in March documenting an average day at one of the world's busiest ports. ... Other shows in the Extreme Engineering series document construction of the new Bay Bridge in San Francisco and the "turning torso" building in Denmark, which resembles a male figure turning at the waist."
5. Bellman, Annmaree (2004-11-18). "Pay TV - Thursday". The Age. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The review notes: "This episode of the engaging series follows the week of one crew and their bosses, from high-rise dangers to nights on the town. The engineering is amazing, the building rising due to a massive automated structure that hauls itself up each completed floor to provide the basis for the next. It's the 21-man crew that makes it happen, though, and in frigid temperatures and strong winds. The narrator plays the "descendants of Vikings" card too often, but it's a great look at extreme building and its practitioners."
6. Del Gandio, Jason (2014). "Performing Nonhuman Liberation: How the ALF and ELF Rupture the Political Imagination". In Besel, Richard D.; Blau, Jnan A. (eds.). Performance on Behalf of the Environment. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-7391-7498-2. Retrieved 2024-06-14 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Discovery also airs Build it Bigger, a show that depicts massive, breathtaking feats of engineering. This show—as a discursive phenomenon—subtly contributes to the masculine, patriarchal, and even quasi-imperialistic practices of "bigger is better" and "expansion is progress." It also ignores issues of population displacement and the extinction of indigenous practices and knowledges caused by urban sprawl."
7. Jergler, Don (2004-07-15). "Digest: Cable Show to Highlight Port of L.B." Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The article notes: "Discovery's Extreme Engineering series is produced by Powderhouse Productions of Somerville, Mass. Production crews filmed at the Total Terminals International container terminal on Terminal Island, a 375-acre facility that is the Port's largest shipping terminal, and one of the largest such facilities in the world."

reliable sources

Extreme Engineering

Build It Bigger

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline

reliable sources

independent

Cunard (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the sources presented above show it's notable enough and, according to Wikipedia's policy on notability, the page can be retained. Thanks, Cunard. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have other opinions on this newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I am convinced the new sources are enough for notability. 'WITHDRAW' DonaldD23 talk to me 21:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science Proposed deletions[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Science Redirects for discussion[edit]

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate

Deletion Review[edit]