Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum ontology


 * 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 and redirect to Interpretations of quantum mechanics. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Quantum ontology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unencyclopedic article presenting pseudoscientific nonsense as fact. The redirect to interpretations of quantum mechanics mentions Ontology, that is sufficient for now as this is pretty unfixable without substantial sourcing and re-writing to satisfy WP:FRINGE, specifically Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear. Polyamorph (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment as nominator, so much wrong with this article, so little understanding of quantum mechanics, and no place on Wikipedia for statements like "Quantum ontologists explore the Field internally and communicate with it using ... their consciousness (honed by the Essentiality technology)." Polyamorph (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The nomination implies intention to delete. Holding off on tagging as duplicate !vote as you may just want to turn this into a comment instead. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, I've changed to comment. Polyamorph (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:FRINGE woo supported only by what looks to be self-published work by a single author. I don't think we need to get into the weeds of exactly why this is all nonsense in order to decide whether to delete it as non-notable nonsense. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a possible delete, but at minimum Draftify based on the concerns above. Also let's ping the article creator (who wasn't the page creator, so didn't get an automated notification): &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I got the material for this page from a client who wanted me to create it for him, and he wanted me to point out the Quantum Psychology and Quantum Mysticism pages as a reason why this page should be allowed to go up as well. I haven't written any of this material, all I am doing is creating the page for him, so I let him know about all this, so that way I can figure out what he wants from here. —blacklilyofkon (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * What your client wants is totally irrelevant - we simply are not interested in their wishes. You have an undeclared conflict of interest. If your client is paying you then you are editing in violation WP:PAID. Polyamorph (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as blatant WP:FRINGE. This sort of mumbo-jumbo really is exactly what the encyclopedia does not need. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Interpretations of quantum mechanics, which was the stable version of this page for a decade. If someone came to Wikipedia looking for, say, more information about this not at all WP:FRINGE use of the term "Quantum ontology", Interpretations of quantum mechanics would be the right place to direct them. - Astrophobe  (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Astrophobe. --hroest 21:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure it's fringe theory, it has several/many peer-reviewed articles that come up in Google Scholar. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The subject of Quantum Ontology in metaphysics is still pretty dubious, but sure could probably have a well balanced Wikipedia article on that subject. But this article as it stands is utter nonsense and not representative of those studies of which you speak. Polyamorph (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete most of this is both unsourced and FRINGE. Not thrilled with Interpretations of quantum mechanics as a redirect target. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a complete trash of an article. Completely non-encyclopedic.   scope_creep Talk  10:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, and redirect to Interpretations of quantum mechanics. The article as written is absolute pseudoscientific woo, but 'quantum ontology' can refer to a genuine scientific or metaphysical concept. I'd recommend deleting the article as-is to prevent it being restored easily... ƒirefly  ( t · c ) 11:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - as pointed out above, so many issues with this, WP:ORIGINAL, WP:VERIFY, WP:FRINGE. I don't think there is enough worth saving to even draftify.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Note the content creator was offered financial compensation to create this article on behalf of Tom Powell, the author of some of the works cited in this version. See the declaration here. Polyamorph (talk) 09:16, 12 March 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.