Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Dark oxygen production

Dark oxygen production (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 has fundamental BLP issues, including that includes self-published claims (e.g. PubPeer, EarthArXiv preprints) of misconduct against living people, such that it would need to be entirely rewritten from the ground up to be acceptable as an article. I don't really think this controversy is really best placed to be a standalone article anyway. I think that coverage of this issue would probably be better off in a much condensed form in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone and Dark oxygen articles, where it could be presented in context. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Stubbified just as I was making the AfD, here's the pre-stubification version: . Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Chemistry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
• Honestly, i feel like a Merge to Dark oxygen is in order. Didn't even realize that was another page on this. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to 'Dark oxygen', in very condensed form per Hemiauchenia. The current article is entirely unacceptable for multiple reasons, and a separate article, even if policy-compliant, would appear to be undue. We don't have articles on every disputed scientific paper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dark oxygen which discusses various methods of such oxygen production. This isn't the only one. Don't merge until the dust settles about whether the paper has to be retracted, and then wait for secondary sources. While we do have articles about scientific controversies (which is what the unstubbed article was), such as Cold fusion, this one does does not have wide coverage. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per StarryGrandma. Whether parts of the content should be added to that page can be debated on the talk page there if people are interested.Ldm1954 (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Animal exploitation

Animal exploitation (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)

Deleted by consensus in 2007, redirected to Cruelty to animals in 2009, remained that way until recreation in 2025.

POV fork of Human uses of animals; all verifiable information on the subject is already covered there and/or in Cruelty to animals and/or Animal-industrial complex and/or Commodity status of animals (not sure that last one needs to exist either... but that'll be a separate proposal).

Not trying to censor the exploitation argument from all these topics, but this article as a standalone is unnecessary. elchupacabra (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Science. elchupacabra (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Vanessa Van Edwards

Vanessa Van Edwards (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:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The Forbes items are bylined "YEC Women" (WP:FORBESCON) and the Entrepreneur, CNN and HuffPost citations are her own columns. The WSJ and Publishers Weekly entries are bestseller chart listings rather than reviews, so neither book has independent critical attention. The BBC, Time, CNBC and Financial Times pieces just quote her as a body-language commentator instead of covering her. LogosUnspoken (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, and United States of America. LogosUnspoken (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, Oregon, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment (paid COI, see my user page.) Her new book Conversation debuted at No. 5 on the New York Times Advice, How-To & Miscellaneous list dated October 25, 2026: https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/2026/10/25/advice-how-to-and-miscellaneous/ The nomination mostly went off old sources or ones she wrote. The best recent independent ones:
  • Business Insider, October 13, 2026. Dan Slater on the new book, about half of it his own write-up. https://www.businessinsider.com/vanessa-van-edwards-conversation-author-interview-2026-10
  • Time, April 29, 2026. Angela Haupt, opens with her work on listening. https://time.com/article/2026/04/29/how-to-be-a-better-listener/
  • Publishers Weekly, May 29, 2026. Business books preview that leads with the new book. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/new-titles/adult-announcements/article/100494-new-business-books-emphasize-emotional-intelligence.html
  • CNBC Make It, November 13, 2025. https://www.cnbc.com/make-it/2025/11/13/harvard-instructor-use-these-tactics-to-gain-influence-at-work.html
  • Publishers Weekly review of Cues, December 23, 2021. https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780593332191

  She was on CBS Mornings (October 6, 2026) https://www.cbsnews.com/video/tips-on-how-to-be-liked-from-a-behavorial-researcher/ and ABC News Live (October 7, 2026) https://abcnews.com/video/137064844/ for the book. She's also been a guest on four of Spotify's ten most-played podcasts worldwide in 2025 (The Diary of a CEO, The Mel Robbins Podcast, Modern Wisdom, On Purpose with Jay Shetty), two of them more than once: https://newsroom.spotify.com/2025-12-03/wrapped-top-artists-songs-albums-podcasts-audiobooks/

  The past year also has coverage in Spain and Luxembourg (La Vanguardia, El Confidencial, L'essentiel). I've put a few sourced additions in an edit request on the article's talk page. Scott at Science of People (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, subject of AfD has received significant coverage in this article in Austin Monthly and this article from WDET, coupled with the sources provided by the COI user above the subject appears to meet WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Yakov Kuzyakov

Yakov Kuzyakov (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)

WP:GNG / WP:NACADEMIC; promotional content I am nominating article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Kuzyakov for deletion because the subject's encyclopedic notability is not adequately demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. A substantial proportion of the references currently used in the article are institutional profiles, publication databases, or sources directly affiliated with the subject. These may verify individual facts but do not necessarily establish notability under WP:GNG. The article was indicated as having low or undefined importance for all of the Wikiprojects. This proves that the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria under WP:GNG. Also, publication count and highly cited status (which however is not proved for the last several years) do not automatically establish Wikipedia notability under WP:GNG. The article does not present a real biography, but only the indication of the current and only one previous employment of the person, does not include any descriptions of the scientific achievements or awards, but currently tagged for promotional content as it is not in compliance with WP:NPOV. I therefore believe the article should be assessed against WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC, with particular attention to whether there is sufficient significant, independent, reliable secondary coverage to justify a standalone biography. Springimposter (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. Springimposter (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
• Procedural Note; this discussion literally closed nine days ago, albeit with two !votes that may well have been the same person. I don't have a stance on the substance of this question but rapid re-nominations are generally frowned upon. Consider if there are alternative pathways other than outright deletion. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:22, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

  The second nomination only 9 days after the previous one was induced by the reveling the misuse of Wikipedia page for blackmailing. On 15-03-2024 one internet website published the statement: 'The verdict doesn’t name Kuzyakov, but his Wikipedia page links to this verdict. He was removed from the institutional website'. I have checked the history of changes and noticed that the information about the court was added on 8-03-2024 by BorisHill2020, but was deleted due to the absence of the name of the subject of this article in the document. To my opinion, all information provided by Wikipedia should verified. Especially if it provides a negative information about the subject of a WP:BLP, which acting against the policy for content about living people. Springimposter (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, despite the difference from the outcome of the recent AfD, mostly through WP:PERP, to protect the subject of a WP:BLP, and remove him from List of scientific misconduct incidents for the same reason. We do not have reliable secondary sources on the accusations of academic misconduct, so we cannot cover them here. And unless there is evidence of long-term interest in this specific case, something that makes it stand out from other routine cases of academic misconduct, it does not pass our guidelines for notability of people accused of wrongdoing. On the other hand, the accusations are serious, have already been confirmed and led to sanctions, and call into question the validity of his high citation counts. Therefore, I think we should neither consider him notable under WP:PROF#C1 nor leave standing an article that whitewashes the misconduct by omitting it. The solution to the dilemma that we cannot mention it and cannot omit it is simply not to have an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

  Keep. Not sure what you mean with secondary sources. He has multiple retraction and the retraction notices from the publisher are quite clear, he edited his own papers. There is the retraction watch database, that for the moment lists 3 of his retractions (the others still need to be added). Furthermore, the person asking for the deletion of the article is Yakov Kuzyakov himself. After his unethical behavior was made public (and added here) he tried to first delete it and now he tries to delete his own article (that he himself also wrote initially). ~2026-45690-91 (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

  Note that this appears to be the same IP who wrote two of the three keep comments before, or maybe (since the third was blocked as a sock) all three. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

  @David Eppstein please provide correct information. There were 3 keeps and 2 of them were from long term members/editors: @Jishara & @LegacyWiki {{ping|Jishara}} {{ping|LegacyWiki}}. ~2026-55978-72 (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

  LegacyWiki is the blocked sock. Jishara did provide a keep. There were also two long comments, one of them a signed keep, from you as an IP editor. The other of your comments appears formatted together with Jishara's comment in a way that makes it look like you signed theirs. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

  Delete, I agree with the David Eppstein that we can not judge about the notability of the person only based on amount of publications. There are from 3000 to 10000 papers retracted every year from one or another reason and obviously having 5 retraction out of more than 1000 published papers does not require to keep the article about the person to show the exceptional scientific misconduct. As there is neither notability is proven, nor serious misconduct, which deserve to be reported as biography, the article should be deleted to protect the subject of a WP:BLP. Springimposter (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

  First of all, you are the one who asked for deletion (already the second time) so why you are here now arguing delete by posting this is highly unusual.

  Secondly, having 5 retractions is effectively highly problematic and puts you in the 0.5-2% of all scientists when it comes to having retractions (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2018.1449651). The bulk majority of researchers with retractions only has 1 (or 2). If you have 5 or more retractions you belong to a very small group of researchers with retractions. This alone puts Yakov Kuzyakov among a very small group of people. The argument that he has 1000+ publications does not matter in this case. Ethical considerations are not based on the % of retractions compared to the total output.

  Thirdly, the reason for his retractions are very serious and perhaps even among the most serious reasons ever: corruption of the editorial and review process. He did not only handle his own papers but also assigned a reviewer closely linked to him. This is a serious ethical issue and the retraction notices make this very clear.

  Lastly, Claiming that there was no serious misconduct proven is a lie as it is well documented (also through a secondary source, the retraction watch database) and David Eppstein already confirmed the serious accusations and that they were confirmed. ~2026-45690-91 (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

  The page about Yakov Kuzyakov does not provide his biography, but just contains some of his current and only one previous employments. Areas of expertise solely rely on the webpages at both universities - University of Göttingen and RUDN, and the first link to Indian journal provide the website of RUDN as the primary source of the information. Very probably, both university webpages were created based on the information provided by himself. In this case, two sources does not provide verification of the information. Besides, the statement about the unethical scientific misconduct and its detailed description in the 'Controversies' comprise up to 40% of the total article. As the same information is also duplicated in List of scientific misconduct incidents, I suggest to delete this article about Yakov Kuzyakov. Springimposter (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep Yakov Kuzyakov is one of the most prominent soil scientists in the world. In this regard the article deserves to stay. See for examples the following link, highlighting his status as a world renowned and cited author: https://manuelgarcia.info/worlds-top-scientists/author/28185940586 ~2026-55892-98 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete this article: the recent activity on this page was highly suspecious and led to ongoing appearance of misinformation. The pattern clearly pointed towards an intentional attempt for reputational damage. Having myself once suffered from such attempts, I'm really convinced that this is for living persons, who are still active in research, not acceptable. No matter what I personally think about Yakov Kuzyakov and his research: this case should be treated independent of any academic achievements or weaknesses and a deletion should solely serve the protection of the indiviudal rights of the living person. ~2026-56007-29 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The website www.manuelgarcia.info was created by Manuel B. Garcia, a professor of information technology and founding director of the Educational Innovation and Technology Hub at FEU Institute of Technology in Manila, Philippines It is informative, but does not represent any official source. Furthermore, the list in the reference measures citation impact, not overall scientific excellence. We should not use tabloid wording without verification of his real scientific achievements, and judge only based on the amount. I suggest to DELETE this article, as high publishing activity without well-recognized awards may only result in inclusion of the person to 'top 2% ranking', but can not support the real significance of someone for the scientific community. See the publication Del Fabbro, M., Stabene, S., Khijmatgar, S., & Tartaglia, G. M. (2026). “Persistent anomalies in the Stanford/Ioannidis top 2% scientist’s database: empirical impact of publication-type filtering, temporal coverage correction, and retraction-rate thresholds.” Scientometrics. They concluded, that 'the ranking should be interpreted as a citation-based indicator, not a definitive measure of scientific quality or an independent award.' Springimposter (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete this article due to the following reasons:

1) The article about Yakov Kuzyakov, created in 2020, has been heavily edited by anonymous users over the last several months. Since then, 70% of the initial biographical description has been changed, and the information provided is sometimes incorrect or tabloid-like.

2) Gilmaruby created this page with the help of other article creators (volunteers) who used to work with Yakov Kuzyakov a few years ago. Obviously, the Gilmaruby account belongs to me and not to Yakov Kuzyakov, as claimed in the editing history comments by anonymous  user ~2026-45690-91 (6.10.2026: Revering vandalism by Gilmaruby, who most likely is Kuzyakov himself).

3) The strange and obsessed attention, including partiality to Yakov Kuzyakov, and the possible misuse of the article about him created by me, can only be solved by deleting it. Gilmaruby (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I assume the Russian version will also be up for deletion? That article is highly promotional and does also not meet the criteria. It's a bit odd that one is left as it is. ~2026-55892-98 (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as per David Eppstein. Not notable. WP:BLP1E clearly applies. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to see more commentary from people not obviously involved in importing an off-wiki conflict onto Wikipedia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Jesus Christ this is all just a squabble over editing papers after publication? In soil science? Extremely WP:LAME fight for y’all to bring here, might honestly make it in the book. Like I have no idea what the guy actually did wrong here, I’m sure something unconscionable to his contemporaries but to me it just seems like he was covering his ass for methodological errors after the fact. So long as the informations correct I personally couldn’t care less, but that’s neither here nor there, cause I don’t know nor care to take the time to find out.

The article definitely isn’t promotional, primarily on account of the furious effort by other editors here (I assume rival soil scientists, or co-authors-turned-Brutus) to make his ultimate treachery known. If the claim in the article is true that he’s one of the most widely cited soil scientists in the world (I always have trouble accessing citation trackers, so can’t confirm Edit: confirmed by Jishara), Redirect or merge to University of Göttingen or Patrice Lumumba Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, as there’s next to no citations indicating the notability of any of the claims being made here, and PAGEDECIDE really wins out as consequence in my opinion. Otherwise delete it, This was a ridiculous analysis to have to do.

CSGinger14 (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete, the latest activity on this page and the discussion itself turned out, the Wiki Source is now the Yellow Pages. It seems that notability has not been proven, as a high H-factor and a listing in the highly cited scientists only until 2022, but not last several years (not clear why?) cannot support exceptional scientific achievement. As CSGinger14 wrote, the whole story behind is nothing but WP:LAME. I don't think it's interesting enough to keep it here. And also such squabbling could potentially harm the individual and their students or collaborators - which should not be a case and is beyond the aim of Wikipedia autobiography pages. ~2026-56751-00 (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG, as there is a problem in identifying the specific, reliable, independent sources that establish Yakov Kuzyakov's notability. Here, we do not see an assessment based on the quality, independence and depth of coverage of the sources, rather than publication or citation numbers alone. I support deletion, as the available sources, while not always unreliable, do not establish notability under Wikipedia’s relevant guidelines. ~2026-57496-62 (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep as per last time - this is a clear NPROF case, where he's got a 148 SCOPUS H-index and was ranked as one of the most highly cited scholars in the world. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete please: having just by chance seen the very strange modifications and ongoing discussion on this side is wired and not in the spirit of wikipedia. If obviously wiki is used to drive an agenda against somebody, then this is just not, what wiki was build for nor should be used for. It reaches a non-acceptable level in the misuse of this page, and deletion seems the straight-forward way to solve this. ~2026-56976-44 (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Jishara, did you check if he is included to list of the most highly cited scholars in the last several years? I failed to find him listed. Does it mean that he is not highly cited scientist anymore? ~2026-56751-00 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/~2026-56751-00: As of 2026, he is the second-highest cited academic in Agronomy in the world, the 4th highest cited scientist in Germany, and the 66th highest cited scientist in the world. This is an article that we really need to have, I think, just because of how influential he is Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Jishara, he is not listed in the OFFICIAL Clarivate (Web of Science) list https://clarivate.com/highly-cited-researchers/#list The website you provided in your answer kind of generic, but not an official version. Please, see Highly Cited Researchers - Wikipedia ~2026-56751-00 (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

He's not on Clarivate because he was removed in 2024, not because his citation count is insufficient. Furthermore, WP:Notability is not temporary. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

So, this article then does not satisfy the criteria for notability WP:FAILN, but I am not sure the paper you have posted in the answer is a reliable source WP:RS. There is no information that he was affiliated with the Saudi Arabia. Probably, that is another person. I would rely only on the official webpages and official publications WP:RS. ~2026-56751-00 (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary, and a H-index of 148 is very strong WP:NPROF#1 evidence, as is having ever spent time in the list of most highly cited academics in the world. It is the same person, too - a newsletter from his school in Russia also states he is a professor at King Saud University. To avoid bludgeoning the conversation, this will be my final response in this discussion. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2026 (UTC)