Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binocular rivalry described by quantum formalism


 * 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 soft delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Binocular rivalry described by quantum formalism

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is an obscure way to model Binocular rivalry that is based around a single paper by physicist Efstratios Manousakis. Practically no research has been done on this subtopic apart from Manousakis's papers and a few followup papers, including one by Henry Stapp that does not seem to be published in a journal. (Some papers, e.g. deal with quantum formalism in other aspects of cognition, but not binocular rivalry.) It is not Wikipedia's job to describe all the experimental details of this paper, and I explained the topic in just a few sentences in the Binocular rivalry article. Since it can be easily condensed, there is no need for the subtopic to have its own article, so it should be redirected to Binocular rivalry. Related topics include Quantum mind and Quantum cognition. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete This made a tiny splash in the science blogosphere when Manousakis first made the claim &mdash; a splash consisting entirely of people explaining how it was wrong &mdash; but it went nowhere and isn't even noteworthy in the annals of fringe claims. Even mentioning it at Binocular rivalry would be unwarranted. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, on second thought removing the model entirely seems like the right decision. Looking at sources again, the only independent reliable source I could find discussing it is a short journal article that's somewhat negative . Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And Frontiers journals are not exactly of the highest quality. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2024 (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.