Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Bayesianism


 * 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 Keep   Yash  t  101   02:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Quantum Bayesianism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Minor QM interpretation with no significant following. Sources available don't establish notability. I don't think it is significant enough to even feature on Minority_interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The subject gives about 85 hits on gscholar from a diverse group of author. There may be just enough coverage in reliable sources independent from the main proponents of the idea to satisfy the WP:GNG. As long as proper perspective is kept, I see no harm in keeping the article around.TR 11:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest checking for the quality and significance of the mentions, 85 is quite low, especially considering most of the mentions appear to be on arxiv alone. Most of the other mentions appear to be single line mentions. If anything I think it should be merged to Minority interpretations of quantum mechanics but I'm not sure if it has due weight. Compare that to say, the Copenhagen interpretation: or even the much lesser known transactional interpretation:   IRWolfie- (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The amount of coverage that other interpretations of quantum mechanics have is rather irrelevant (since those two are clearly notable). I actually did check what kind of hits gscholar gave. From the 85 there is at least a handful of papers that (a) are primarily about QB, (b) are not written by any of the primary proponents (Caves, Fuchs or Schack) (c) are published in peer reviewed scientific journals of reputable standing (for example Foundations of Physics). This means that the subject (as minor as it currently is) meets the minimum requirements set by the WP:GNG. (a-> significant coverage, b-> independent/secondary coverage, c->in reliable sources) In principle, an article does not need more than just that. And since it is already there, is do not see what is gained by deletion in this case. TR 11:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the handful of papers you mention give more than a passing mention. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The first hit in gscholar (the timpson one) certainly gives more than a passing mention. In principle that is all that is needed. But there are more that are completely about QB (like the Rosado one). How about you actually look at the sources rather than making others do the work for you?TR 13:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I discounted Timpson because he does not appear to be independent, but rather involved in the development i.e his paper is a primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know Chris Timpson, have read his doctoral thesis and heard several talks by him including two on the topic of quantum Bayesianism, and read portions of articles by in on Q Bayesianism. He is a serious academic philosopher (Lecturer in Philosophy at Oxford), and is not himself committed to quantum Bayesianism, but is strongly interested in because he's interested in how the notion of information has been used in physics, especially in quantum information theory, and in the idea that the meaning of quantum theory has to do crucially with information.  While he could be considered "involved in the development" in the sense of providing constructive criticism and appraisal, I'd say his involvement in that way should be taken as a sign of the seriousness with which a solid philosopher has taken the theory.  His papers are not primary sources of the QBist approach itself.  Note that I consider myself sympathetic to quantum Bayesianism, perhaps even an unorthodox quantum Bayesian.  MorphismOfDoom (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The Jaeger source alone is enough to establish notability by the general notability guideline; and I have added two more independent sources. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How large is the mention in the Jaeger source? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pages 170-179 are entirely devoted to Quantum Bayesianism. You can view them in Google Books. RockMagnetist (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong KeepIt has been shown by a simple search on http://www.scholar.google.com for the title of this article that this article meets notability criteria and does not meet pseudoscience or spam criteria. 129.2.129.220 (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "scholar" link at the top of this page performs the search for you. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow thanks.129.2.129.220 (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Snowball_clause
 * Keep This is at least significant enough to merge with Minority_interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics lws (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then delete and merge is applicable, due weight in an article and notability are separate issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * IIRC “delete and merge” is forbidden for copyright reasons, we'd have to leave at least a redirect behind so that non-admins can see the revision history of the content merged into the other article. (And right now Minority_interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics is just a list, having only one of them expanded would be weird.) ― A. di M.​  01:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a case where the Snowball Clause is applicable.

"If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." 129.2.129.145 (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not appropriate. Also as I noted the first result from google scholar is not independent. Most of the results from google scholar are in arxiv and not published. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Enough of the sources are independent and reliable to satisfy the notability criteria. They don't all have to be. RockMagnetist (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. With a slightly different search term you find many more sources.  --Lambiam 20:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a general google search, we were speaking of google scholar. Also note WP:GOOGLEHITS. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please look properly at the links provided by Lambian. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

" lbovard, did Fuchs only email the three you told me or more? jakr: he e-mailed about 15 people" IRWolfie- (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Off wiki canvassing Note that a large amount of off wiki (I saw this on ##not-physics on freenode) canvassing and organising is taking place:


 * Keep It's an interesting idea that deserves a wiki, there's a small but quality literature on it, and it's notable.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 10:31, 30 April 2012 (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.