Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Physics

Non-inertial reference frame

Non-inertial reference frame (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)

Note: This merge proposal was originally opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Inertial frame of reference § Proposed merge of Non-inertial reference frame into Inertial reference frame

 – FaviFake (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Non-inertial reference frame into Inertial reference frame

wide overlap; cannot discuss either one without the other. fgnievinski (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Support per nominator's rationale, the readers are best served by a single article. FaviFake (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Support per nomination.

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Physics-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Rafik Badalyan

Rafik Badalyan (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 citations, and generally does not meet notability guidelines Kozak391 (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Visual arts, Mathematics, Physics, and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: per Kozak391, couldn't find any sources about him on google news or scholar

Saenryl (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Alireza Mashaghi

Alireza Mashaghi (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)

Highly promo page for an associate professor in pharmacology. His h-factor is 39, citations 6.4K in a high citation field, so definitely too low for WP:NPROF. No significant awards from his peers; his infobox lists two awards without sources that are not mentioned in the text. I see no SIGCOV in a WP:Before. Ignoring the (annoying) writing style, it is WP:TOOSOON by some years. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Chemistry, Medicine, Physics, and Germany. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, A key national/public figure in Iranian Science. KIA is the highest national honour for an academic there, and recognises national impact. This is beyond academic rank and metrics such as h-index. Livingdroplet (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Recognition as a KIA Laureate directly satisfies WP:NPROF criterion 2 as a highly prestigious national academic award, akin to top prizes in other nations that confer notability. Additionally, he is widely known in Persian media for his pioneering of dual-degree education programs in Iran, which trained thousands of students nationwide over decades and reshaped higher education access/infrastructure (as documented in Persian Wikipedia based on Persian sources), meets criterion 4 of WP:NPROF via substantial impact on academic institutions. Livingdroplet (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, for now. Give him another three or four years and he may well qualify, as he's on an upward slope. All of his well cited papers have lots of authors, which for me is not a good sign. Athel cb (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I absolutely agree. Deetailz (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep First of all, thanks for notifying me. I understand the concern regarding bibliometrics under WP:NPROF, and agree that the case may appear borderline when assessed purely on citation metrics (which can vary significantly across disciplines he is active in). In this particular case, however, WP:NPROF is not required where WP:GNG is met. The “no SIGCOV per WP:Before” assessment may be incomplete. The subject is a receipt of Khwarizmi award, the most notable and the highest national honor of science in Iran and West Asia (given jointly by UNESCO), has generated independent coverage and constitutes strong evidence of notability (and may satisfy WP:NPROF criterion #3 if sourced). Missing citations in the current version are a WP:V issue, not a notability failure. This is fixable. I also appreciate the WP:TOOSOON concern, but given existing national-level recognition and coverage, notability does not seem purely prospective here. Notability does not require seniority either, where SIGCOV exists. In sum, the subject meets WP:GNG and I recommend Keeping and improvement, not deletion. Plectoneme (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment, note that none of the claims about about the KIA award, his education efforts in Iran and SIGCOV is present in the article, and none of it comes up in a Google Search. If these claims are correct, they need to be verified by reliable sources in the document so that WP:HEY becomes relevant.
  • Response, Thank you. Nearly all available sources are in Persian. I found a few English sources and have now included them, including one showing him receiving the award from the President. Plectoneme (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Those go some distance, but I am not convinced as yet. (Admittedly the major peacock on the page does not help.)

  1. I do not see either of your sources [22] or [23] indicate what role he had in interdisciplinary, beyond a (GS translate) statement in [22] "This required a change in the country's laws, which we succeeded in doing". I am not convinced how notable helping to have an interdisciplinary course is, this is something academics do routinely, WP:MILL. Ref [23] says nothing on this and appears to be irrelevant.
  2. Ref [24] is not right, it should be the KIA Bulleting. Ref [25] does not mention him and appears to be irrelevant.
  3. It is not obvious that Khwarizmi International Award meets the bar for WP:NPROF#C2 or WP:NPROF#C3. There was recently a related discussion at WT:NPROF#International National Academies and C3 which came to no general consensus, only that such decisions must be made on a case by case basis.

  Ldm1954 (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for your feedback.

  RE 1. Sources [22] and [23] are brief, but they do explicitly attribute to his efforts to enable double degree parallel studies. In particular, [23] states that he “managed to provide the opportunity for elite students to study in two majors at the same time.” While the coverage is not extensive, this reflects a change at the level of national higher education policy rather than routine academic activity. Given the centralized nature of university admissions in Iran, such changes are not typically implemented at the level of individual institutions, and involve two ministries of science and health. I agree the sourcing could be stronger, but the available sources do indicate involvement in a reform that extends beyond ordinary academic duties.

  RE 2: Reference [24] is not the primary source for the claim but is a reliable international outlet and includes him explicitly (including visual identification). Reference [25] was included to provide context about the award itself rather than to document his receipt of it (we can remove it if this is not useful). The direct attribution is supported by the scan of the award certificate and announcement from his lab page, which can be added (https://www.mashaghilab.org/news). Taken together, the sources establish both the existence of the award and his receipt of it. Thanks. 19:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Plectoneme (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I am not convinced that the award provides automatic notability. The h-indexes of 6 out of 8 other awardees in 2025, 23, 27, 57, 17, 19, 14. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  This intrepretation is not correct. The Khwarizmi Award has several categories. In 2025, he was the only recipient named a KIA Laureate, which is the highest honour. Those you listed were Khwarizmi Prize awardees in junior or senior categories, and there is even a student category. The prestigious KIA title has been given to Ali Khademhosseini, Majid Samii, Tofy Mussivand to give a few examples, all very influential Iranian scientists.Plectoneme (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  To further clarify: Of course, notability is not determined solely by metrics such as h-index or specific discoveries; being a public figure with major national impact can also establish notability. For example, you mentioned Saeed Sohrabpour, who received the Khwarizmi Award (not KIA laureate) in recognition of his long-time role as president of the country’s leading university. This is also reflected in his election as a foreign associate of the US National Academy of Engineering, “for establishing Sharif University as an academic center of excellence and advancing engineering and science education in Iran.” I hope this clarifies it now. Thanks. 08:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC) Plectoneme (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  I consulted this file which lists 9 recipients in 2025 (pp.9-17). The award given to Mashaghi is The Second Place Basic Research. Some people who receive these awards are notable, but this doesn't mean that all who receive them are notable. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Very well-known scientist. See his name mentioned within the list of 32 most notable scientists from Iranian diaspora. Iran, the Phoenix Awakens: From the Ashes of Her Ancient Glory, a Noble Nation Rises Anew. ISBN 9798902227878. I checked them and all of those 32 names have pages on Wikipedia. Endothelialcell110 (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Richard Watts-Tobin

Richard Watts-Tobin (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)

Bio of an academic with one significant paper during his PhD on the genetic code of proteins, but otherwise a not notable academic career. The case for notability rests almost exclusively on the work Frameshift mutation experiment during his PhD which GS indicates has 2.2K cites. A weakness is that two of his coauthors are Francis Crick and Sidney Brenner, massive names in genetics. (The other author Leslie Barnett was also notable.) For most of his career he worked in physics, with a Scopus profile his Physics work has ~1K cites and an h-factor of 12; the physics work fails WP:NPROF by some distance. I could not find evidence for peer recognition via awards.

Unclear is whether his role in the 1961 paper passes WP:NPROF#C1 by itself, or there are issues of WP:SUSTAINED and possibly also WP:BIO1E. I am sending this to AfD as I feel more eyes are needed; to me this is a Weak delete, unless someone can find WP:HEY additions. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, Medicine, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Junior author of a major paper. I can't see anything that makes him independently notable. Athel cb (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The argument for deletion relies heavily on citation metrics (e.g., Scopus h-index), but Wikipedia policy does not require such thresholds, particularly for historical figures. In this case, notability is supported by multiple independent secondary sources that document the subject’s role in a foundational scientific discovery.

The 1961 Nature paper on the genetic code (Crick, Barnett, Brenner, Watts-Tobin) is widely treated in historical and educational literature as establishing the triplet nature of the genetic code. For example, a Royal Society biographical memoir of Sydney Brenner describes this work as “one of the most remarkable papers in biology” and explicitly includes Watts-Tobin among the authors responsible for demonstrating that the code is read in triplets (White & Bretscher, Biogr. Mems Fell. R. Soc., 2020).

Independent educational sources (e.g., Nature Scitable) similarly describe the work as providing the first evidence for a triplet code and also explicitly name Watts-Tobin as part of the research team. That is, independent sources do not isolate Crick and Brenner; they consistently attribute the work to the full author group including Watts-Tobin. For example, as cited in the Wikipedia page, a Nobel lecture by Marshall Nirenberg (1968) explicitly credits Crick, Barnett, Brenner, and Watts-Tobin with establishing this principle, which was a foundation of Nirenberg's work.

These sources demonstrate sustained recognition of the subject’s contribution in authoritative historical accounts of molecular biology. Notability here derives from documented participation in a foundational scientific advance, not from modern citation metrics or career-wide publication volume, although he did make solid contributions in later life in research focused on superconductivity.

Therefore, the subject meets WP:GNG based on significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and concerns about WP:BIO1E are mitigated by the broader body of related work (including the 1967 follow-up study) and continued historical treatment of the discovery.

Disclosure: I am the creator of this article and have been its primary contributor. LocusAndLeaf (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep, but on unusual grounds. We are an encyclopedia. We've agreed to have articles on academics if they meet certain criteria, but we also need articles on academics in whom the public may have a legitimate interest. The frameshift paper is so, so important, and Crick's name is so, so widely known to the public, that it's highly likely we'll have curious people wondering who the other co-authors were, what they contributed, and what happened to them in the rest of their career - even if not very much happened! For this reason I think we can make an exception to NPROF for Watts-Tobin. It would be inappropriate to redirect to the frameshift mutation experiment because this, rightly, concentrates on the experiment, not the authors. But there is information in Richard Watts-Tobin that is verifiable and that our readers might quite reasonably want to know - and that, for me, is enough for a weak keep. We certainly don't improve anything by deleting - it would be deletion for the sake of uniform-application-of-rules, which is the weakest of reasons. Elemimele (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  OK. I won't fight that. Athel cb (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I think Elemimele's argument is compelling; there's potentially an 'IAR keep' case here, but I also think the first criterion of WP:ACADEMIC is relevant. A major contribution to a very significant discovery, followed by a very respectable academic career (even if no other achievements were at the level of the earlier one) is surely good grounds for an article. That said, there do seem to be some significant later achievements; for example, there a few hits for Kramer–Watts-Tobin model on Google Scholar, but I'm not really qualified to judge this. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  • For instance: here is a paper that mentions the Kramer–Watts-Tobin model in its title; the model originates (I think) in this paper. Here is a paper on a different topic that explains that, in that area, 'The basic model most widely used originates in the work of Watts-Tobin' in this sole-authored paper. Again, I'm way out of my area, but his work seems to be of some significance across multiple fields. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)