| Revision as of 14:05, 5 October 2006 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,211 edits →[]: vote to delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:13, 5 October 2006 edit undoByrgenwulf (talk | contribs)1,234 editsm →[]: rm extra "but"Next edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| 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. | 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. | ||
| It was prodded a while ago, |
It was prodded a while ago, someone removed the tag, but the article has remained the same.] 12:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per nom ] 12:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nom ] 12:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete.''' I find the reasoning in the nomination and the ] cogent and sensible. If these ruminations had attracted more attention, one could have made a case that they merited an article on notability grounds. However, such is not the case, and we don't need an article on every idea which went nowhere outside the inventor's head. ] 13:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete.''' I find the reasoning in the nomination and the ] cogent and sensible. If these ruminations had attracted more attention, one could have made a case that they merited an article on notability grounds. However, such is not the case, and we don't need an article on every idea which went nowhere outside the inventor's head. ] 13:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:13, 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.
It was prodded a while ago, someone removed the tag, but the article has remained the same.Byrgenwulf 12:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Tengfred 12:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I find the reasoning in the nomination and the talk page cogent and sensible. If these ruminations had attracted more attention, one could have made a case that they merited an article on notability grounds. However, such is not the case, and we don't need an article on every idea which went nowhere outside the inventor's head. Anville 13:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I think we should cut some slack for the hidden variable theories, but this short article is quite hard to follow, and the use of the term 'cybernetics' is not motivated. Plus the concerns about lack of citations mentioned above. To show how thoroughly this articles was discussed, It should be mentioned that, besides Talk:Quantum cybernetics there was also a debate at . EdJohnston 14:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)