Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hidden-measurements interpretation: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:11, 30 November 2018

Hidden-measurements interpretation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This interpretation is not notable, since it was invented long after entanglement had been discovered and proven possible, has at no time in history seemed consistent with the possiblity of entanglement. — SvartMan (talk) (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 13:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvartMan (talk • contribs)

Comment. The deletion rational is arguing that Hidden-measurement interpretation is wrong and foolish. This is not a valid reason to delete an article; as long as the topic receives significant coverage from reliable independent sources then it is a notable encyclopedic topic. From a cursory glance at this article's citations, this criteria appears to be met. That said, citations are used very inappropriately in this article, for example, the 35 inline citations in a row in the #History section are clearly excessive. Further, most of the sources are papers by the same authors; some of the sources even look like different versions of the same paper. These citations fail to provide a neutral point of view on the topic, instead promoting the work of this small group of researchers to excess. An expert needs to read the papers that are cited and see which ones actually support content in the article, removing the others.
Finally, if this interpretation of QM is clearly flawed, we need a criticisms section. Such a section, properly sources, will go a long way to combat the neutrality issues in the article. BenKuykendall (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 This interpretation is not notable, since it was invented long after entanglement had been discovered and proven possible, has at no time in history seemed consistent with the possiblity of entanglement. [[User:SvartMan|&#32;— SvartMan (talk)]] ([[User talk:SvartMan|talk]]) 13:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science|list of Science-related deletion discussions]]. 13:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)</small>  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SvartMan|SvartMan]] ([[User talk:SvartMan#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SvartMan|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+*'''Comment'''. The deletion rational is arguing that Hidden-measurement interpretation is wrong and foolish. This is not a valid reason to delete an article; as long as the topic receives [[WP:GNG|significant coverage from reliable independent sources]] then it is a notable encyclopedic topic. From a cursory glance at this article's citations, this criteria appears to be met. That said, citations are used very inappropriately in this article, for example, the 35 inline citations in a row in the [[Hidden-measurements_interpretation#History|#History]] section are clearly excessive. Further, most of the sources are papers by the same authors; some of the sources even look like different versions of the same paper. These citations fail to provide a neutral point of view on the topic, instead promoting the work of this small group of researchers to excess. An expert needs to read the papers that are cited and see which ones actually support content in the article, removing the others.<p>Finally, if this interpretation of QM is clearly flawed, we need a criticisms section. Such a section, properly sources, will go a long way to combat the neutrality issues in the article. [[User:BenKuykendall|BenKuykendall]] ([[User talk:BenKuykendall|talk]]) 16:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)