Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of incomplete measurements


 * 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. JForget 02:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Theory of incomplete measurements

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Presents self-published material originating from the author's personal website. The only citation in the article is to a single paper and although the paper's title page indicates that Hewlett-Packard might be the publisher, the author's paper ends with a disclaimer that says "My employer, Hewlett-Packard, did not directly commission this work, and had no direct role in its creation." Furthermore, I can find no secondary sources and other editors have expressed concerns that this is original research on the article's talk page. Modocc (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR, no references given to published literature. Djr32 (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as synthesis. There are two sources available at Google scholar, and nothing at Google news.  It seems interesting, but it does not cite any of the results I could find at general Google.  It may not meet WP:GNG.  Possibly userfy? Bearian (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Bearian's comment: There are not two reliable sources available via Google Scholar. The first source is de Dinechin's self-published manuscript, and the second is a paper from 10 years previously which happens have buried somewhere within it the phrase "quantum theory of incomplete measurements".  Djr32 (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete quantum mechanics is one of those subjects which are a magnet for OR type theories and we should have particulary high standards for work in this domain. This article does not have anywhere close to the number of thgirds perty refernces I would need to see.--Salix (talk): 17:31, 30 March 2010 (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.