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

Environment (systems)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; this defines a term, but it seems unlikely that it can be expanded beyond "In thermodynamics, *heat* can sometimes be exchanged with the environment". I doubt there is a meaningful history of the concept that "the thing you study interacts with the things around it in some approximated way". There are currently no sources and Google searches (for obvious) reasons do not turn up relevant ones per WP:BEFORE. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Dennis Clark

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

Industrial scientists don't generate much coverage that we can use to determine their actual influence in their field. This expert on zoom lenses has a single monograph with 80 citations reviewed in Optics & Laser Technology and a self-published book about his own physics theory. Doesn't meet NPROF and I can't find any in-depth coverage that would meet GNG. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamcruftisement for a fringe "theory". XOR'easter (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there were multiple reviews of the zoom lens book we could consider having an article on the book and redirecting there, but I only found the same one as the nominator [1]. In any case one book isn't going to pass WP:AUTHOR, his Google Scholar profile [2] shows nothing else of significance, and the fringe theory WP:COATRACK is a likely ongoing problem that would be solved by deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheries Society of Bangladesh

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

Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found press releases and directory listings, but no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The society's work may be good and important, especially to those connected with it, but the organization is not notable (not a suitable topic for a stand alone Wikipedia article). Worldbruce (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Obviously the page itself needs to have sources added. What persuades me towards keep is that the organisation is quoted quite a lot as part of the CV or similar of people, e.g. membership, talks, award and Orcid entries as examples. (There are many more of these.) This indicates that it has enough stature that people mention it, albeit this is not as strong as specific articles on it.

Introduction to the Theory of Computation

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

Stub with basically no content, notability not established. Tule-hog (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can only find the one formal review already included as a source in the article, but there is more in-depth content about this book in the following non-review sources:
- "Designing Theory of Computing Backwards" SIGCSE 2024 [3] [4] ("The very popular ToC textbook by Sipser ... is very standard"; later article text provides more detail on Sipser's book in order to compare with a different presentation preferred by the authors)
- "Towards a Mechanized Theory of Computation for Education" Types 2022 [5] ("We formalize Sipser’s Introduction to the theory of computation in Coq")

Two more sources for which I did not find the full text to check whether it was in-depth (the first one) or that discuss the text and support its popularity but are not in-depth (the second one):

"Strategies in the theory of computation" J. Computing Sciences in Colleges [6] ("I use Michael Sipser’s text Introduction to the Theory of Computation ... Sipser’s text is fairly compact and his presentations favor conceptual understanding"),
"Teaching Theoretical Computer Science and Mathematical Techniques to Diverse Undergraduate Student Populations" ASEE 2018 [7] ("The textbook I adopted is one of the two most widely used texts on introductory theory of computing, one by MIT professor M. Sipser")

I think that is enough for WP:GNG (and I think WP:NBOOK is mostly just a statement that like other GNG-based topics we need in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, which we have here). As for "it's a stub", that's not a valid deletion rationale, especially when there exist sources from which to expand it. (Disclaimer: I was brought here by a talk page notice because I had added the one review source already present in the article. I think that should count as the standard notice to significant contributors and not as canvassing.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Science, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David above. Enough to pass GNG/NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that with the above documentation (and sifting through a heap of miscellaneous course syllabi), we have sufficient indications that the book is a standard text and adequately article-worthy. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the SIGCSE source mentioned above is pretty persuasive for me. It's a well-established venue for papers discussing computer science education, and that paper discusses the subject in-depth. The article should be expanded, not deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture (string theory)

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

Seems to fail WP:NOTDICTIONARY, most references seem to be reproducing this article. Plus, unsourced since 2009. But I'd appreciate someone who knows more about the topic chiming in. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into RNS formalism. Keep after the prose and reference improvements by XOR'easter. The idea of a picture and associated picture-changing operators exists in string theory. Here are two articles that discuss the concept Geometrical framework for picture changing operators in the pure spinor formalism, Picture changing operators in supergeometry and superstring theory and a review paper that discusses it Integral Forms and Applications. I'm not sure if this rises to the level of a notable topic. Merging into the article RNS formalism, the representation where pictures were first described, would be a possibility, but it is not a perfect target. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete No references means no content should be merged. Since RNS formalism say nothing about "picture" delete would be fine for now. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Picture changing operator (yes, the article does not currently exist), Keep per improvements made to the article and sources added. there must be sources defining a "picture" in some scientific paper somewhere, but that doesn't mean there's a lot of papers talking about what a picture itself is. There appear to be a lot of papers talking about what a Picture-changing operator is. If someone who understands the topic a little bit could quickly define a picture-changing operator this solution would resolve the issue with having to merge it into one representation when (I think this is what @Mark viking is saying) they are relevant to multiple. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have rewritten the article and provided sources. It's easier to search for "picture changing operator", since "picture" has many informal uses when talking about physics, but the idea of a "picture" (in this specific, highly technical sense) is more logically fundamental than the idea of transforming between them. So, the current title is a little better than picture changing operator would be, although it probably doesn't matter too much. A merge wouldn't be out of the question, but I'm having a hard time finding a uniquely good target, so I think keeping the page where it is would be best. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvements; I didn't understand the material well enough to write a good summary myself. Changing my !vote to keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being significantly sourced. I’m not sure if it’s substantively correct, since it’s not be proven. Bearian (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Rhine-Westphalian Academy of Sciences and the Arts

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

The article clearly lacks any WP:independent sources. Xpander (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Germany. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Education, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Mehraj

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as tagged. No changes since previous draftification by @BoyTheKingCanDance: ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Science. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to meet WP:NPROF. Kazamzam (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a very obvious case. Postdoctoral researcher with an h-factor of 12 with 517 cites, no awards, not even close. Note that there appears to be a COI as this looks to be autobiographical. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article creator has same name as title, obvious COI going on here. Procyon117 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a now retired academic in several countries, it is quite clear to me that this WP:NPROF is no way near deserving an article. Bduke (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF, and WP:SALT. I’m not going to rehash the analysis above. In 2007, academic people would make jokes about editing their own Wikipedia “page”. In 2024, everyone knows we are not FaceBook. If he becomes notable in the future, which is iffy in today’s market, then we (not him) can politely ask an administrator to re-create his article. Bearian (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solid surface

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

Article which is a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH combination of several products under a non-existent name. Nothing notable that is not already in the companies products. No coverage of the name since the usage here is completely inappropriate -- there is a standard definition of what a "Solid surface" is. Almost everything is unsourced WP:OR. Since Espresso Addict opposed a PROD arguing that there was useful content, nominated for AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Solid surface" seems to be used for a "synthetic countertop material that contains both minerals and resins" ... "33-percent binding resins and 66-percent minerals. Those minerals are a bauxite derivative, aluminum trihydrate (ATH)".[8] (a selling site). Will try to find some more-respectable sources. The article should state upfront that it applies to the synthetic material and that the physics usage is covered in surface (though actually I see it isn't really). It might be a good idea to move this to a title with a disambiguator and make "solid surface" into a dab. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many hits in Ebsco (3,260 for '"solid surface" countertop'), some of which call the material "solid surface composite" which might be a good article title; a few of the top are: W Kyle Mandler, Chaolong Qi, Yong Qian. Hazardous dusts from the fabrication of countertop: a review. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health. Jul2022, p1-9 [9] "Both SSC and ES consist of a mineral substrate bound together in a polymer matrix. For SSC the mineral is about 70% aluminum trihydrate (ATH)"; Counter Points. By: Van Vlear, Victoria, American Farmhouse Style, 26415380, Feb/Mar2024, Vol. 9, Issue 1; Solid Surface International Expo 2005, SolidSurface Magazine. May/Jun2005, Vol. 11 Issue 3, p40-46; Webster, Mark. Seamless Solid Surface Sinks. Surface Fabrication. Mar2008, Vol. 14 Issue 3, p26-29; Dulley, James. Replace your old countertops with solid surface ones. Farm & Dairy. 10/4/2018, Vol. 105 Issue 3, p15; Spaulding, Harry. Counter vision. Residential Design & Build. Feb/Mar2007, Vol. 72 Issue 2, p44-49; Windmeier, Patrick. Understanding The Cause Of Solid Surface Countertop Failure Part I: Front Edge Cracks. Surface Fabrication. Oct2008, Vol. 14 Issue 10, p22-23; The latest in countertop trends. Wood Digest. Mar2006, Vol. 37 Issue 3, p34; and many more. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A solid surface is literally that, the surface of a solid. It is an important topic in surface science, physics, chemistry, materials science, catalysis and a few others. There are millions of academic papers and quite a few Nobel prizes with a history of many centuries. The latest was Ertl in 2007
for his studies of chemical processes on solid surfaces

If you want to defend it then please do a ~~redirect~~merge to some innocuous name such as Countertop, rather than suggesting that centuries of science should be ignored because someone decided to hack an established name. (Countertop is more comprehensive than this, but also appalling devoid of sources.) Ldm1954 (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, lots of words/phrases have more than one meaning, and as I wrote above, I am entirely happy with moving this off the top level to allow a disambiguation page or a primary page on the phys/chem topic (which I don't think currently exists?). Bear in mind that while many of the editors who patrol AfD deletion lists in science/academia topics are actually current or former scientists, I fear the average reader might genuinely be more interested in what material to get their kitchen/bathroom countertops made out of than in the physics/chemistry meaning. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate page exists, surface science. Also, please note that it is science, not just physical sciences or just physics/chemistry. For instance cell adhesion to solid surfaces is an important topic where there has been extensive work. The normal use of the term is everywhere, just for fun try this. Abnormal use is just that, and has no place on WP IMHO. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: for an expert view on the term as a synthetic material; perhaps he will be able to suggest a better move/merge target. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly rename to "Solid surface material" or "Solid surface product". I have refrained from editing this article for many years because I have a deep conflict of interest. I have derived a large majority of my income for over 40 years from selling, fabricating, installing, repairing and modifying solid surface countertops and related items such as table tops, desk tops, retail service counters and tub and shower walls. So, I have paid the mortgages on two homes and bought a third for cash, raised two sons from birth to age 40 and age 35, traveled extensively and lived a pretty good middle class life due to this product. I was active in a trade group called the "International Solid Surface Fabricator's Association" for quite a few years. One of my sons is keeping my business going as I transition toward retirement, which is a source of great pride to me. "Solid surface material" or "solid surface product" is the generic term accepted in the construction industry of the English speaking world for a variety of competing commercial products that includes international brands such as DuPont Corian, Avonite, Fountainhead (defunct), HiMacs, Staron, and countless regional brands. The current lead section is largely accurate. The rest of the article is of varying quality ranging from OK to mediocre to terrible. The referencing is really poor. But AfD is not cleanup and I am absolutely certain that this topic is notable and that Wikipedia should have an article about it. As for the idea of merging/redirecting to Countertop, that would be like merging/redirecting German shepherd or Boston terrier or Poodle to Dog. There are many materials used for countertops, and we should have articles about each one of them that is notable. This is a discrete and notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Solid surface product" is Ok, with "Solid surface" redirected to Surface science. However, I prefer WP:TNT. I just checked some of the sources and they have no bearing on the claims they are trying to justify. I think we are doing a disservice to WP by having articles full of unverified claims and unreliable sources. Without a reasonably sourced article notability is certainly not demonstrated. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific about some of the OR/SYNTH here:
To verify a claim that the same tools as used by wood can be used, a paper on the hardness of surface treated wood is quoted.

To verify a claim that additives such as crushed optical fibers can be used, a paper on a hydration process is quoted.
N.B., Countertop remains a strong merge candidate as it is quoted as the main use multiple times. However that page is equally bad in sourcing. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. The topic is notable. That is what matters most. Cullen328 (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but there is no evidence of notability. As you know, your statement as an expert does not make it notable, WP:Burden. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Espresso Addict provided plenty of evidence of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Here is a list of 24 books that provide significant coverage to solid surface materials:

This should establish notability and allow any editor without a conflict of interest to improve the article. Cullen328 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that WP:Deletion is not cleanup is an essay. WP:BURDEN is policy. If you are voting Keep then I would say the burden is on you (and/or @Espresso Addict). I am somewhat gentle in my approach compared to some editors I know who just delete, delete, delete. Realistically, if all unsourced statements were deleted there would be nothing left beyond the lead (as that does not need sources).

So long as you are WP:NPOV, declare the COI and describe your competitors more than your company I see no reason why you cannot at least add sources. Alternatively or as well you can use WP:Edit requests. I would be happy to add those, and I suspect that @Espresso Addict would also. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ldm1954, for fifteen years, I have been exceedingly careful to avoid violating WP:COI. I have an obvious and massive and glaring financial conflict of interest about this topic. You are asking me to violate the COI policy and I will not do it. I have provided a list of 24 books that provide significant coverage of this notable topic. I think that is enough. In my view, you should withdraw this nomination and improve the article based on some of the sources that I have furnished. Cullen328 (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reconsidered and will post some proposed content on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC

I have posted some proposed content which I believe is neutrally written and well-referenced at Talk: Solid surface. I encourage Ldm1954 or Espresso Addict to remove the unreferenced and poorly referenced content and replace it with the content I have drafted. I support moving the page to Solid surface material. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft suggestion is a great deal better than the current article. I have left some comments on the talk page. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:Deletion is not cleanup is an essay, our deletion policy is relatively clear on the broader point. Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Per WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." If you feel the topic is notable but the current content is unsalvageable, you can for example boldy reduce the article to a stub (after the AFD). I feel that WP:BURDEN is primarily associated with verifiability of content within an article, but the relevant question here is whether the article topic is notable. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Americanoid

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

Delete or possibly merge with Okunev culture. The first paragraph is about a "discounted" theory which probably doesn't deserve its own article. The second also is not deserving of its own article and can be merged if it isn't already in the Okunev article (I only skimmed it). PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Archaeology. PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on searches this was a theory regarding Siberian and other northern ancient peoples that was promulgated in the early 20th century, specifically by Russian anthropologists. As it is no longer an accepted designation, a few sentences in an article for the subsequent theory should suffice. I did find one article that criticized the term and attributed it specifically to Russian racism, but that perhaps could be a marker of scientific enmity and distrust of Russian science. Lamona (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reformat as a WP:Disambiguation page and merge appropriate content Vladimir Jochelson per WP:ATD. Given that there are two verifiable definitions being used, one linking to Vladimir Jochelson and the other Ancient North Eurasian/Okunev culture, this is a reasonable navigational page.4meter4 (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Okunev culture. There's no need for a merge as the subject is already covered sufficiently there. No need for a DAB page. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vladimir Jochelson. Short, poorly sourced article about a theory by a notable scholar seems like an obvious merge to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with this merge to help reach a WP:CONSENSUS.4meter4 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would be fine with merging with Vladimir Jochelson as well, for consensus. PersusjCP (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanawha people

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

WP:TNT, this doesn't appear to be about a notable topic, and I can't find any scholarly literature discussing the subject. The idea that the Kanawha people are the ancestor's of Native Americans appears to be fictitious, or at least incredibly fringe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Piscataway people per sources like [10], which indicate that "Kanawha" is used at least in part as a synonym for the Piscataway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the original Special:PermaLink/229303722 shows this was an essay titled "Kanawha Valley's Prehistoric people", that has been mojibaked into its current form. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I'm suprised an article as bad as this one has stuck around for this long. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a real people group mentioned in history journals and books. [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. I'm not saying the current text is accurate, but I have a big problem with deleting an article on a Native American people group. That would be participating in erasure which is morally problematic in light of the history of Native American genocide in the United States. The answer is to trim out unsupported content and validate what we can with the sources we can locate. Stubifying it would be better than deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When people are writing "Kanawha people" are they referring to a distinct ethnic group, or a general term for Native Americans inhabiting the Kanawha area? If the latter, I hardly see how this warrants a standalone article. The sources you mention are passing references that are completely inadequate to construct any kind of meaningful article about the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sources better than this are needed. However, it is clearly a people group as they are being referenced as living in New England in one source, and Kentucky in another at various points in history. It's not attached just to the Kanawha Valley. I'll see if I can find anything in JSTOR or EBSCOE that gives a better defined definition.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first four of those sources appear to be referring to white settlers in the Kanawha Valley. The only mention in the Cotterill source, in a passage about a surveying party in Kentucky, is in the sentence, So many of the Kanawha people had joined the expedition that there were now thirty-three men in the party, although four of the original members had returned home for fear of the Indians. The Stealy source is talking about the cost of hiring slaves in Kanawha County, and the only mention of Kanawha people is in the phrase, I discover that the people of this country don't like to hire to the Kanawha people, it is a long distance & near the state of Ohio. The Davisson source is about the Union army in Kentucky during the Civil War, long after Native Americans had been forced out of Kentucky, and the only mention of 'Kanawha people' is in the sentence, I propose ... to induce the Kanawha people to take a more decided course. The Engineering and Mining Journal source, from 1910, says, The New River and Kanawha people have been busy in New England territory this spring, offering coal at very low prices. I think it is quite clear that those sources are referring to white settlers/residents of the Kanawha Valley, and not to any group Native American people. Donald Albury 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could be, but the Scoggins source below clearly is referring to a Native people group that the Kanawha Valley is named after (not the other way around). That people group lived in several places according to that source. That source is enough to establish that deletion is not the answer here and WP:ATD at the very least is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that the Scoggins source does not support any content in the article other than the possibility that "Kanawha" was the name of a Native American group that moved to the valley. I do not think that there is anything in the present article that can be salvaged. Donald Albury 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your point? I said I didn’t think current text was accurate and the article should be stubified to the reliable sources we find. Clearly we could write a short paragraph based on Scoggins and the journal article provided above by the nominator. That would take all of five minutes to do.4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it would be a sub-stub, unlikely to ever be substantially expanded. Better to be a redirect to an article that can provide context. I understand that you are concerned with Native American history being covered in Wikipedia. I am too. But, if there is next to nothing reliably sourced to say about a group, it is better to put what little can be sourced as a section or sub-section in a larger article, or even as an entry in a Boldlist. Donald Albury 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is referring to St. Albans Site. Haven't looked through all the "Kanawha people" links above but the appear to have been misread. fiveby(zero) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This old article on the history of Kanawha County from West Virginia University political science department says that the Kanawha were a people who lived in the area during the early British colonial Period, but this honestly this isn't a great source and I haven't been able to find anything better, so maybe a redirect to Kanawha_River#History would be better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the existing article there wood be Adena culture. oops colonial period, will look for more. fiveby(zero) 19:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This tribe, a branch of the Algonquin family, was closely related to the Nanticokes and Delawares who resided in what are now the states of Delaware and Maryland. During the seventeenth century, the name of this tribe was variously recorded by early English settlers as “Conoys,” “Conoise,” “Canawese,” “Cohnawas,” “Canaways,” and ultimately, “Kanawhas.”
— KANAWHA Michael C. Scoggins

Conoys redirects to Piscataway people

looks like a museum bulletin but by a published author. fiveby(zero) 19:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's definitely an improvement. Looking at other sources, they seem to agree on the synonymy between Conoys and Piscataway, so I would support redirecting to that article (though I am unclear if as to whether the term "Kanawha" has been applied to multiple distinct Native American groups). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much forward we are here. Scoggins looks to be from Hale, John P. (1891). History of the great Kanawha Valley. p. 63. That's this John P. Hale. I'd like to find something more recent and more affirmative than the author's "probably derived by evolution from..." fiveby(zero) 21:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There does appear to be some confusion about the issue in the literature. The Lenape and Their Legends (1885} states: [16]

The fourth member of the Wapanachki was that nation variously called in the old records Conoys, Ganawese or Canaways, the proper form of which Mr. Heckewelder states to be Canai. Considerable obscurity has rested on the early location and affiliation of this people. Mr. Heckewelder vaguely places them "at a distance on the Potomac," and supposes them to have been the Kanawhas of West Virginia. This is a loose guess. They were, in fact, none other than the Piscataways of Southern Maryland, who occupied the area between Chesapeake Bay and the lower Potomac, about St. Mary's, and along the Piscataway creek and Patuxent river.

The Indian wars of Pennsylvania (1929) p. 53 states [17]: The Conoy, also called the Ganawese and the Piscataway, inhabited parts of Pennsylvania during the historic period. They were an Algonquin tribe, closely related to the Delawares, whom they called "grandfathers," and from whose ancestral stem they no doubt sprang. Heckewelder, an authority on the history of the Delawares and kindred tribes, believed them to be identical with the Kanawha, for whom the chief river of West Virginia is named ; and it seems that the names, Conoy and Ganawese, are simply different forms of the name Kanawha, though it is difficult to explain the application of the same name to the Piscataway tribe of Maryland, except on the theory that this tribe once lived on the Kanawha.

The 2022 book chapter "Tribal Collaborations and Indigenous Representation in Higher Education: Challenges, Successes, and Suggestions for Attaining the SDGs" states: The Piscataway Rico Newman, Piscataway elder and MIHEA participant, relays some history of the Piscataway people: The Piscataway-Kanawha (Piscataway) are the “People Who Live Where Waters Blend Below Rapids.” Prior to colonization, the Piscataway developed well-orchestrated lifeways that sustained them for centuries.

Reading the literature. "Kanawha" also appears to be used for a stone projectile point type produced in the early Holocene, long before the colonial period. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Based on Scoggins, it seems like it would be possible to keep the article if it were substantially rewritten. However, it would be equally plausible to incorporate that content into the Piscataway people article and redirect it to that page. Either would be fine, but I do think closing this AFD is going to require someone to step in do the work of either recrafting the current page, or writing a bit in the Piscataway people article so that a redirect is appropriate. That article currently doesn't even mention the Kanawha people.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is really anything to say in any article yet. Appreciate your view on erasure but in my opinion worse would be getting this wrong and creating some fiction about a people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough evidence between the journal article presented by the nominator above (who is advocating for a redirect) and the Scoggins source to put something into the Piscataway people article at the very least. Scoggins is after all a published historian. At some point, we just have to trust subject matter experts and their judgement. Worse in my view would be to ignore these sources as a form of WP:Systemic bias; something wikipedia struggles with when it comes to marginalized people groups (which has been researched).4meter4 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom. oncamera _{(talk page)} 10:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an appropriate article. - Donald Albury 13:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for input from WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America or Keep and start a renaming or merge discussion on the article talkpage. The article was originally titled Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) then moved to Kanawha valley people and then to Kanawha people. The intent here was clearly to describe a prehistoric people known from St. Albans Site and probably others. I don't think the content is very good and may be including description of the later Adena culture. The article is misnamed, probably has the wrong scope, and not very high quality but i think the original intent of the content is completely appropriate for WP.

The confusing name has led us down the path of looking at the colonial era Conoy tribe and whether or not Kanawha is a synonym. There was some dispute about the name in sources since John Heckewelder's suggestion that Kanawha was from Conoy but i think in our recent sources that has been accepted and not really questioned. Redirects from Kanawha to Piscataway are appropriate but then we have some additional confusion to work out. That is the difference between a 'tribe' and a 'people'. I think there is widespread confusion as to peoples and subdivision such as 'tribe' or 'band' and how they are recorded and named throughout history and how they might be organized or recognized today. There were both a Conoy tribe (the Conoy proper or Piscataway) and it seems a Conoy people.pp 125-6 I think this is represented on WP as Piscataway people (Conoy people) and Piscataway-Conoy Tribe of Maryland (Conoy tribe)?

I don't really have a whole lot of confidence for much of this, so i think input from some more knowledgeable editors is necessary. fiveby(zero) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i do not think it would be easy or practical to have an article that only covers the prehistoric people. The content should probably be merged somewhere but i have no real idea to where. It should definitely not be merged to any Piscataway or Conoy people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 16:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content is frankly so lacklustre that it would need to be entirely rewritten to include anywhere. I think Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) and Kanawha valley people can be redirected to Kanawha River#History as these clearly relate more to the geographical location. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is much better content, and now i see you suggested that as a target above and i missed it distracted by the Conoy. My confusion is probably more due to distaste as to how WP titles and scopes people and tribe articles in general. The closer might have a tough time with all the confusion and redirects involved but i think you have the best plan here so Note to closer: consider my vote what Hemiauchenia says. fiveby(zero) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Piscataway people: per the reasoning given by Hemiauchenia. TarnishedPath^talk 04:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Piscataway people per Hemiauchenia.Bcbc24 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page, because no single redirect target is satisfactory. Most of the article as written (really more of a school essay than anything) covers the whole experience of the colonization of the Americas by settlers from Asia thousands of years ago. But the object, and the last couple of sections, seems to have been to describe the native people who lived in the Kanawha Valley before it was settled by Europeans. Those were decidedly not Piscataway, even though the word "Kanawha" may have been used at one point synonymously with "Piscataway" and perhaps derived from "Conoy". Our article about the Piscataway seems to exclude any possibility that they ever lived in the Kanawha Valley, and that alone would confuse readers who come across this title.

At the same time, I cannot determine whether there is any other article on a group of American Indians who would be described this way, and be the definitive redirect target: the last major groups who might have inhabited the Kanawha Valley would be the Fort Ancient culture and the Shawnee, who may or may not have been identical (evidently that has not yet been determined). But the degree to which the Kanawha Valley was inhabited, rather than merely transited during this period is also unclear; most archaeological sites are older and probably date to the time of the Mound Builders, a vague term which in this case really refers to the Adena and Hopewell cultures. All of these would correctly be described as "Kanawha people", and it is not unlikely that some readers would also expect this title to describe the later, European settlers of the valley, including but not limited to modern-day Kanawha County, another possible redirect target.

Since all of these are plausible targets, and the article contains almost nothing that is not already in one or more of them, the best way to resolve the issue is to convert this into a disambiguation page—either one that strictly follows the normal disambiguation page criteria, or perhaps a more narrative one that explains how the phrase might apply to different but related groups—including the Piscataway, of course, but certainly not redirecting to them, since that would likely astonish most readers. P Aculeius (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no disagreement with this proposal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While a closer might redirect this article to Piscataway people because of the bolded statements, it's not clear to me that this is the consensus or would be appropriate. First, there are doubts where this "people" is a Native American tribe or just referring to "people who live in Kanawha". Secondly, there is no mention of Kanawha people at this suggested target article. Finally, there are alternative suggestions including Keep, Delete or redirection to a different target article based on the location of Kanawha, West Virginia. So, since I don't see a firm consensus and lots of different arguments floating around here as recently as yesterday, I'm going to relist this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the arguments that "Kanawha" is an alternate spelling of "Conoy" have some merit. But (largely for the reasons expressed by Liz) I can't endorse the redirect to Piscataway people. Perhaps a DAB page would be an option. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the assertion that there is no "Kanawha people" is fundamentally not true as Scoggins was absolutely clear that the "Kanawha Valley" was named after the "Kanawha people" who lived elsewhere prior to being the first people to settle in the Kanawha Valley. The valley was named after the people group, not the other way around. The sources are also pretty clear that Kanawha were/are a branch of the Piscataway people (ie. Conoy). The best solution here is to add a sentence to the Piscataway people article and then redirect to that page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A viable second option would be to turn this into a dab bage with a reference to the Conoy/Piscataway people. And a possible second meaning of people living or from the "Kanawha Valley". That might be the best so we cover all bases.4meter4 (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that be better than a redirect? Any group known to have lived in the valley should be mentioned in the history section of the Kanawha County article. I see that the Kanawha River article does list various cultures and peoples that have occupied the valley, although nothing is sourced. But I don't think people will be looking for "Kanawha people" when they are interested in the Adena or Fort Ancient cultures. And if they are interested in earlier occupants of the valley, how would they look for "Kanawha people" rather "History of Kanawha County" or "History of the Kanawha River"? Donald Albury 02:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly opposed to any solution which doesn't include either a redirect or a navigational link at a DAB page to Piscataway people per the journal article cited towards the top and the Scoggins source. Not doing that erases that this is indeed a real Native American people group and not just natives who happened to live in the Kanawha Valley. Scoggins is clear the Kanawha were the Kanawha before they ever arrived in the Kanawha Valley, and the valley was named for them.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a redirect is my preference. I don't think there is any case for calling any other group that has lived in the valley "Kanawha people" in an encyclopedic sense. Donald Albury 02:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some people commenting who oppose redirecting to Piscataway people arguing that the term "Kanawha people" has been applied more generically to people living the "Kanawha Valley" in some cases. (This is true according to Scoggins who points out the term has been used inconsistently) A dab page would allow us to articulate the discrepancy by saying "Kanawha people" could refer to 1: an alternative spelling of the Conoy people which is a subset of the Piscataway people or 2. people who reside or originated from the Kanawha Valley. This would allow for the various uses of the term as described by Scoggins. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A redirect to Piscataway people seems like the leading alternative to deletion, but there's no consensus for deletion. There's no consensus even as to what the article is about.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Contents

Science

Environment (systems)

Alan Dennis Clark

Fisheries Society of Bangladesh

Introduction to the Theory of Computation

Picture (string theory)

North Rhine-Westphalian Academy of Sciences and the Arts

Hasan Mehraj

Solid surface

Americanoid

Kanawha people

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Deletion Review