| Revision as of 12:12, 5 October 2006 editByrgenwulf (talk | contribs)1,234 editsNo edit summary | Revision as of 12:14, 5 October 2006 edit undoByrgenwulf (talk | contribs)1,234 edits this new template thing doesn't work properly, someone should fix itNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}} | {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}} | ||
| Hmmm...] suggests that "a minimum standard for any given topic is that it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, where the source is independent of the topic itself." I feel that this fails that criterion. The article would appear to have been created by the person who came up with this theory, meaning that maybe it fails ] as well. It is ''not'' a widely recognised ] (or, in fact, recognised by anyone at all, apparently, other than its author), and Citebase records a total of of "quantum cybernetics", 3 of which are self-citations. See also the discussion on the article's talk page for more info. ] 12:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{{text}}} ] 12:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:14, 5 October 2006
Quantum cybernetics
Hmmm...WP:NOTABILITY suggests that "a minimum standard for any given topic is that it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, where the source is independent of the topic itself." I feel that this fails that criterion. The article would appear to have been created by the person who came up with this theory, meaning that maybe it fails WP:VAIN as well. It is not a widely recognised interpretation of quantum mechanics (or, in fact, recognised by anyone at all, apparently, other than its author), and Citebase records a total of 6 citations of "quantum cybernetics", 3 of which are self-citations. See also the discussion on the article's talk page for more info. Byrgenwulf 12:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Categories: