Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hidden-measurements interpretation

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]
- To be honest, that one author that almost single-handledy wrote the Wikipedia page might well be one of the authors of that YouTube video / paper published in a few places with variations. Are any of the referenced sources reliable secondary sources that meet Wikipedia standards? Publishing the content in all these places obviously took more effort than just posting some text on pastebin and citing that from Wikipedia, but does it meet our [notability:WP:N] and [anti-originality standard|WP:NOR]? Pretty much the independent source I found on Google is a [Physics forum thread https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/hidden-measurements-interpretation.872340/] stating "Reading the paper, this interpretation just sounds like a roundabout way of saying measurement results are probabilistic," and unanimous consent that the paper proves no claim whatsoever. Irrespective of the actual verity of the paper, there seems to have been no public discussion of the material except for that Physics forum thread, the Wikipedia page and this deletion request. It's less notable than, for example, a false news piece. — SvartMan (talk) (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination does not advance a deletion rationale based on Wikipedia policy, but that said, the topic is not notable by our standards. All the sources in the article are primary (by Aerts or his co-authors). The same goes for the citations to the paper that supposedly introduced the idea: they are by Aerts, by people who repeatedly co-authored with him, or passing mentions. One of those co-authors actually called the idea "overlooked". This interpretation doesn't even make the list when physicists are surveyed about their favorites. When an interpretation of quantum mechanics is so obscure that nobody has argued why it must be wrong, then it's really obscure. XOR'easter (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on policy (not nom) a quick check can't find any independent sources 1. fails WP:GNG with zero independent secondary sources (they're all non-independent as collaborators per the article) 2. WP:TOOSOON / promotion - when there's secondaries it can be written. Widefox; talk 02:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further, the include criteria at Minority interpretations of quantum mechanics should be checked to see if the current listing of this theory there should be removed (it isn't clear to me what the include criteria is, but if the review sources mentioned there don't include this - presumably not, else it would be a valid secondary here - then it should be removed). Widefox; talk 02:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]