User:Ace111
MediaWiki version 1.47.0-wmf.8 (4d13f59).
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
.gif){kind=small}
_breeding_adult_Gronjordssoen.jpg)
Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp
 |
|---|
| 21 June 2026 |
|
Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Slavic Wikipedias have 8,617,895 articles.
Russia
[edit]- Chechen Confederation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article should be deleted, redirected, or merged because it does not show that the "Chechen Confederation" is a notable or widely recognized topic, separate from the larger history of the Chechen people. A lot of the article has weak sources, relies on low-quality references, or cites sources that do not clearly support its claims. Many references are primary sources, self-published works, or non-academic websites that are not suitable for establishing broad historical conclusions.
The article also raises serious concerns about original research and synthesis. Much of the content seems to mix information from different sources to create a historical narrative that is not clearly supported by reliable secondary sources. The term itself does not seem to have wide use in mainstream historical studies, making it hard to confirm the article's scope and significance.
Additionally, the information presented here largely repeats or overlaps with topics covered in the history sections of existing articles about the Chechen people and Chechen history. Instead of having a separate article based on a poorly defined and poorly sourced idea, any reliably sourced information should be included in broader, better-established articles where it would receive the right context and significance.
According to Wikipedia's rules on verifiability, reliable sources, no original research, and notability, deletion, redirection, or merger would be the best options unless strong coverage in reliable independent secondary sources can be shown. AE182 (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 June 18. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 18:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- I created this page about a denonym for the chechen territories in dagestan "Degasta", i also used sources for claims, wheres the problem? Moltenn9 (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Daghesta is a self-designation used by Chechens, similar to Daimokhk and Nokhchicho, not a historical state or confederation. (I'm not entirely sure about this part since I don't know Chechen history well enough, so perhaps the creator of the page can provide more information.)
- In its current form, the page is a complete hoax. It discusses a legendary war between Kumyks and Chechens (the page about that war was deleted from Wikipedia for presenting legends as historical information) and claims that the Okochan prince Shikh-Murza was the leading commander in the war. This is not true, as the legends identify Zokk Kant as the leader of the Chechens.
- The map used in the infobox is also inaccurate. It places southern Dagestani societies and states such as Gazikumukh under Chechen rule, removes Gazikumukh from the map and replaces it with Nogais, and depicts the Ingush (who were tributaries of Kabardia) as vassals of this fictional state. It is also completely unsourced, so I doubt the part showing the Avars as vassals is accurate either.
- The sources used on the page do not describe Daghesta as a "Chechen Confederation" or a "Republic." They merely mention the ethnonym Daghesta and territories stretching to the Caspian Sea. I do not know how accurate this claim is, but I doubt that any Chechen societies during the 1500s–1800s controlled territory on the Caspian coast.AE182 (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- 1. Deghasta was mostly referred to Chechen territories from 17 to 19th centuries. Chechens obv didnt control whole of caspian sea but the central part and some parts of northern were under chechens including the kumyk plain, this claim comes from the Karl Knorring, A.P Berzhe, A Adilsultanov, V.A Shnirelman and A. Suleimanov.The sources from the Book of Mezhidova. T.U and Научний Алманах Moltenn9 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- Makim Nikitin (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 on a Russian biophysics academic whose major claim to notability is, to quote, “molecular commutation”—a discovery that revises the classical double helix model
. I am not convinced of a pass of WP:NPROF, so sending to AfD for more discussion.
From standard citation metrics, his Scopus h-factor of 35 with 3K cites is too low for #C1a in nanotechnology, a high citation area.
The case for a pass depends, IMO on the "discovery" and an associated 2024 State Prize of the Russian Federation and whether this qualifies for a pass of #C1b. Since the 2023 Nature Chemistry paper on it has to date only 80 cites I do not see enough peer recognition that this passes #C1b by itself, it is WP: TOOSOON for such a claim. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think that the fact that he is laureate of the 2024 State Prize of the Russian Federation is a good reason why this article has notability and should be kept, regarding his "discovery", if anything seems suspicious or not supported enough with reliable citations, this section can be removed. Rakoon (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, Chemistry, Medicine, Physics, and Russia. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Mostly agree with nom, I would be willing to change my vote if we can determine the notability of receiving the State Prize of the Russian Federation -- namely: are state-sponsored Russian government prizes worth the same as a prize like the US's National Medal of Science? Jay-GH 06:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:26, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- 1951 Kazan Lisunov Li-2 Crash (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)
Lack of source, only database and blog (?) were shown, WP:AIRCRASH. TBB (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Russia. TBB (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Delete – Beyond database and unreliable sources such as forums, there is simply no significant or in-depth coverage in secondary sources that would make this event pass WP:GNG/WP:NEVENT. There have been no proven lasting effects or long-term impacts on a wide region that would demonstrate this event's notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Draftify If it needs more sources, then this would be the best route for this article YokohamaVibez (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Draftify too, since this was originated from a accepted draft from an AFC member (I found that most aviation accident article of @YokohamaVibez that was AfDed were from AFc member accepting their drafts. It should be talked to AfC member about actually revising the draft to ensure that there won't be any chance of being AfDed; Same goes to TACA Flight 510 recently) Ohok12 (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comment – What is the point of draftifying this page? Draftification as a result of an AfD should be used for pages where there is the possibility of improvement. Unless this crash suddenly starts receiving analytical coverage, there's just nothing to suggest that draftifying this is needed and that it will improve its chances of meeting notability guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Irina Zvereva (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)
Far below the notability standards of even WP:NTENNIS. Achieved nothing noteworthy during her career. Never quite reached WTA Tour level. Notability is also WP:NOTINHERITED from her son. Tvx1 06:43, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related AfD discussions. Tvx1 06:43, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Germany, and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:40, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep Faulty reasoning by the nominator. She did reach WTA Tour level, so she does meet WP:NTENNIS. More importantly, she meets WP:GNG through [1] [2] [3] [4]. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Sportsfan77777 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
- No there is nothing faulty with my reasoning. She played one WTA event in doubles. ONE. A domestic soviet event where she lost her only match in an unremarkable manner. This is a far below a notable achievement. We have stepped away from performance-based notability years ago, so NTENNIS doesn’t even ascert notability. As for the WP:GNG argument, of course there are going to be some background articles written on the parents of major sports stars, especially by specialist sources, but that doesn’t make these people notable in their own right. I already dealt with that by referring to WP:NOTINHERITED. To demonstrate notability per GNG you need to prove the existence of significant secondary and independent coverage in mainstream sources of Irina herself. Tvx1 16:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing with you that WP:GNG is more important. But you say she doesn't even meet WP:NTENNIS, and that's just not true. You only need to play one WTA Tour event to meet WP:NTENNIS, and she has. No need to make stuff up. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 06:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oleksiy Syvak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no clear evidence that the subject has received significant coverage, or that he is anything but a standard ambassador. Regarding the second paragraph of the lead, that is entirely a work of WP:SYNTHESIS. None of the three sources mentions Syvak, and the fact that Russia has recruited mercenaries from Botswana does not confer notability on Syvak. He fails WP:BIO, as he has not “received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”. Biruitorul Talk 20:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, and Ukraine. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- Weak Keep he has recieved some sig cov for his appointment: [[5]]. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- keep as I believe he is still being talked about on social media and news outlets American Angel1 (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Africa, Botswana, and Russia. ASUKITE 00:07, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think Agnieszka53's source is enough--it hardly touches on him. I searched but only found variations on what is already in the article, interviews, and brief statements made by him at local events. Social media attention is not relevant here: we need coverage in reliable sources. ~2026-35944-76 (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC) (this temp was me, accidentally editing while logged out: sorry.) M kuhner (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Others
[edit]Draft
[edit]
Science
[edit]- 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)
- 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)
- Notopalaeognathae (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 Notopalaeognathae and Novaeratitae to Palaeognathae because there's simply not much to say about these clades (they are entirely based on genetic analysis, so nothing to say about morphological similarities) separately from Palaeognathae to warrant standalone articles. Paleognaths are a small enough group of birds that these articles are not necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Science, and Biology. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Merge These can be covered in the main article perfectly well without duplication. Reywas92Talk 00:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Stem tetrapoda (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 Tetrapodomorpha because the scope of these articles is duplicative, and there's no real reason for them to be separate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, Biology, and Organisms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. --cyclopiaspeak! 09:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Merge, this seems a rather clear cut case. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- List of science centers (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 List of science museums because there is not any inherent difference between Science museums and Science museum#Science centres beyond branding or style and there is considerable overlap between these lists. Reywas92Talk 19:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related AfD discussions. Reywas92Talk 19:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Merge per nom as in a quick check they are all museums (Delete any that are not.)Ldm1954 (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Merge per the nominator's case, much easier for the reader too. Star Mississippi 01:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Merge (hit edit conflict): Agree with Nom's assessment, and other's "Merge" rationale. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Merge to List of science museums. Not a big difference between the two. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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. Reywas92Talk 04:13, 21 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. --cyclopiaspeak! 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. — Reywas92Talk 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 (TALKCONT) 05:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Kepler Launch Site (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 was not able to find any sources Themeparks (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science-related AfD discussions. Themeparks (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: this has been tagged as a potential GNG failure since 2022. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Delete I was also not able to find any sources. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Delete No solid secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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)
- 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.
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)
Science Proposed deletions
[edit]- Flow arrangement (via WP:PROD on 17 January 2025)
- Reiner Kümmel (via WP:PROD on 16 January 2025)
- Measure (physics) (via WP:PROD on 7 December 2024)
- Evolution equations in high-energy particle physics (via WP:PROD on 4 December 2024)
Science Miscellany for deletion
[edit]Science Redirects for discussion
[edit]Deletion Review
[edit]| This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ace111. |