Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relational approach to quantum physics


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Relational approach to quantum physics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

To quote the proposed deletion rationale by, "This appears to be an essay supported by original research". I endorsed that PROD, as the article is a vague and rambling promotion of a paper that has vanished into obscurity (only 3 citations in a quarter-century, and all three of those are merely passing mentions). The PROD was declined because deletion had been proposed before, in 2008. The problems identified in 2008 still exist, and they're not going to be fixed. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: One could improve the article to make it factual and precise, but the fundamental problem can't be fixed: it fails WP:GNG. As the nominator noted, the paper upon which the article is based has only been cited three times. If I may add a personal observation, I'm a researcher in the field of quantum foundations, and I had never heard of this. Upon seeing the title I assumed it was about Rovelli's Relational quantum mechanics, and was surprised that it was being AfD'ed. I'm not a fan of Rovelli's interpretation, but it is undeniable that it is notable. Tercer (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I discovered this page because there was a "not to be confused with" notice in the Relational quantum mechanics article, which is about something different and definitely notable. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The average daily page-view count for the first four months of 2020 was 4. And those views are probably from people who were looking for RQM. No one cares about this article.  -Jord gette  [talk]  16:38, 21 May 2020 (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.