Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum holonomy theory Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantum_holonomy_theory

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, TOOSOON and even no evidence the results were ever published in refereed journals--Ymblanter (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum holonomy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No secondary sources available for this theory. WP:TOOSOON. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that both of the references that I have added have either been or is in the process of being accepted for publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespergrimstrup (talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Quantum holonomy - when that is created. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Rich, its a little tricky, because "Quantum holonomy" is not directly what QHT is about - so I don't think merging to Quantum holonomy is a good idea. In QHT 'Quantum holonomy' is actually short for "Quantum holonomy-diffeomorphism", which we thought was too long for a title. If this article is not deleted then I will expand it with more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespergrimstrup (talk • contribs) 14:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too soon. It is too early tell if this work will have an impact on the field. There are no independent secondary sources discussing the topic in depth, which is a requirement for having a Wikipedia article. (A topic must be notable, already well-known, first.) The two references are primary sources, one still a preprint. In Google scholar the published source has only been cited twice and one of those is the preprint. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree WP:GNG is not yet met, but there may well be grounds for merge/redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    
• Comment: Could this be merged into quantum gravity until such time as it may deserve its own article? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is listed there Quantum_gravity#Candidate_theories =>Other approaches. I sense that there are many more candidate theories than we list. Quite what the criteria should be for being included in this list is not clear. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nominator. I also note that User:jespergrimstrup appears to be a co-author of the two cited papers. It would be better to Delete and wait to see if an unrelated party thinks this is worthy of an article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.