Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative theories of quantum evolution


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit  10:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Alternative theories of quantum evolution

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It was noted during the current RM that this pseudoscientific hypothesis fails WP:GNG, with the only source not by proponents Johnjoe McFadden and Jim Al-Khalili being a rebuttal that is an arXiv preprint. The article subject is unrelated to the theory more commonly known as quantum evolution, which does not involve quantum mechanics. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 04:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 04:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete No secondary coverage, title is terrible regardless as it is not an "alternative theory" but an entirely different concept. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I looked for additional coverage during the move-request discussion and found nothing that was reliable and independent. I think the rebuttal mentioned in the nomination is scientifically correct, perhaps even a little overly generous, but one book review that wasn't even formally published is not sufficient basis to say that an article should exist. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The previous AfD linked over to the right was in 2006, so more than long enough ago to warrant reconsideration, and the consensus was rather weak. By the numbers, there were 4 deletes, 2 merges, and 5 keeps (2 qualified as weak, 1 as strong). One of the merge !votes added If not merge, then delete, the keep !votes have a bit of a "well, it has references" theme, and the closer's statement had the qualification The article embodies all that is worst about this kind of topic, however. Given the breakdown of the numbers and the caveats in the !votes, it should perhaps have been relisted rather than closed back then, but that aside, we're here again now, and the intervening years have not proved the topic notable. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete – As per nom and above, completely fails WP:GNG. —Quondum 14:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This article was originally titled "Quantum Theory (alternative)" and survived an AfD under that name Articles for deletion/Quantum evolution (alternative). The name change was ill-advised but was accepted after a brief discussion on the talk page Weburbia (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Laughably wrong, and wasn't even noted other than to be debunked. Tercer (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. When a WP:FRINGE topic uses the same label as a WP:MAINSTREAM topic, it is important that Wikipedia identify some WP:FRIND notice of the topic. As far as I can tell, with the exception of one preprint, the only people talking about this are those who either have an extreme vested interest in the idea (its progenitors), or those who like to connect quantum mechanics to literally anything (quantum mysticism). Either way, this does not provide for a WP:NFRINGE justification for this article. jps (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable nonsense. My very best wishes (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonsense, yes, but not notable nonsense, as noted above. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article could be renamed since it's really only about a particular hypothesis. It appears to not have had traction, the work is from two authors in one common journal.  The only present independent review is itself in a suboptimal venue.  This indicates a lack of notability.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.