Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-Shot Entanglement-Enhanced Classical Communication


 * 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   no consensus. Has been relisted twice, does not look like there is going to a conensus (non-admin closure) Monty  845  18:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

One-Shot Entanglement-Enhanced Classical Communication

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Only fractionally better than original research. No evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth 20:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability, or verifiability for that matter, also Wikipedia is not a scientific journal (WP:NOT (specifically point 6)) At best, we could rename to something less specific and massively overhaul it to layman's English, but I think that it's just not notable, however it's presented. User:ConconJondor talk contribs 20:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the fascinating result that entanglement can boost the success probability of a classical communication channel, having significant implications for communication over classical channels. It describes a result in the domain of quantum information theory and it is an important observation in this field. The article requires significant clean-up, but it does not deserve to be deleted immediately. The original author should be given time to clean up this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilde (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Userfy so the author has time to clean up the article, and delete per WP:STALEDRAFT if he/she chooses not to do so. Drop the "One shot" and this becomes both notable and verifiable according to Google scholar. This doesn't look like quantum woo to me, but if someone want to correct me on the matter, I'll change my !vote to delete. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article obviously has problems; it seems to have started as propaganda for a single paper. But it now has content and seems to be quickly improving. The subject is notable. It is emphatically not quantum woo. We do have an article on Entanglement-assisted classical capacity; perhaps a merge with it? The whole subject of channel capacity is the main point of quantum and classical information theory. This article has existed for only 6 days; give it some time to improve. Tercer (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.