- 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. The consensus is to delete, with the possible merge of some of the material to quantum computing DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Continuous quantum computation
- Continuous quantum computation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article seems to fail both WP:NOTESSAY and possibly also WP:GNG. It does not really define its apparent topic, although it seems to be about the application of quantum computing to continous problems. I do not think the phrase "continuous quantum computing" is in common parlance with this meaning, however. The sources provided are applications of quantum computing to continuous rather than discrete problems; however I don't think they establish notability of this concept or phrase- none that I checked mention "continuous quantum computation" or any variant thereof. Porphyro ( talk) 09:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 4. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 09:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Seems to me the content could be merged into a section at Quantum computing. Continuous quantum computation was studied with DARPA funding. prokaryotes ( talk) 13:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree- although I would suggest that the amount of useful material on the page as it currently stands is absolutely minimal. I don't think personally that every project given a funding grant is notable, also.
Porphyro (
talk) 14:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Fully agree with you. prokaryotes ( talk) 14:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree- although I would suggest that the amount of useful material on the page as it currently stands is absolutely minimal. I don't think personally that every project given a funding grant is notable, also.
Porphyro (
talk) 14:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. This appears to be a personal essay on the topic. I'm not sure anything here is salvageable for our purposes. Continuous quantum computation may be a sufficiently notable topic for an article (unclear to me), but I think WP:TNT may be appropriate here. Ajpolino ( talk) 16:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Also happy to support merging the salvageable info into another article, but I lack the knowledge of the topic to do that. Kudos to@ XOR'easter: for all the work they've put into this. Ajpolino ( talk) 20:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep – I wrote a new lede (brief, but better than the cold open that was there before), and I condensed and reorganized the existing text so that it reads more like an article than an essay. The subject is definitely worth covering; one review by Braunstein and van Loock alone has 1350 citations in the Web of Science (and over two thousand citations by the more relaxed standards of Google Scholar).XOR'easter ( talk) 16:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- A comment- I think your lede is at odds to what the original article is supposed to be about. The article, and all its examples that I have checked, are about the application of regular quantum computing with a finite quantum dimension to problems that have a continous "flavour". The only source that uses the title phrase "continuous quantum computation" is the
Columbia grant page, and if you check the list of publications there, they are about digital quantum computation. Given that "continuous quantum computation" is not a phrase in regular usage, I would suggest that an article under that name, with the lede you have provided, is not tenable. I have reverted your edits- though I believe they would be a good start for a page called "Quantum information with continuous variables" or the like.
Porphyro (
talk) 18:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Fine. Informally polling colleagues, it seems that the sense of "continuous" used by the original article is significantly less common than the Braunstein–Lloyd–van Loock–etc. sense. (If anyone is curious, I have a draft of "Continuous-variable quantum computation" here.) XOR'easter ( talk) 18:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- One confusing thing is that the final reference (Adesso, G., Ragy, S. and Lee, A. R. (2014), Continuous variable quantum information: Gaussian states and beyond, arXiv:1401.4679) is very definitely about the infinite-Hilbert-space-dimension sense. So, this article has been somewhat of a blend since (...checks history...) 2014. I take this to suggest that it might be better to start from scratch. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Having gone over the article again, editing it for encyclopedic tone and so forth, I think the best course of action would either be to move it to something like "Quantum computation of continuous functions", or to merge it into an appropriate article (like
quantum computation, as suggested above). There does appear to be a legitimate literature on this general area, but the current name for the article is quite confusing, and it is possible that there simply isn't enough article here to stand on its own.
XOR'easter (
talk) 21:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with your colleagues, and the editors who added the paper you mention, that I would have associated the title with the continuous variables rather than the- actually slightly nebulous idea- of computation of continuous functions, so I would definitely agree that the page should be moved to a more appropriate title if kept. I agree that there is literature on this point, but I'm questioning whether or not it's a useful distinction- to make a slightly frivolous illustration it seems a little like having an article called "Scientists whose names contain only letters from the first half of the alphabet". It contains noteworthy subjects but the classification isn't itself of much note. Thank you for your work improving the article- even if the consensus is for deletion I think we can merge some of this content into
quantum computation.
Porphyro (
talk) 09:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reply to comment – I generally agree that the separation of this corner from the rest of the field is rather arbitrary. In order to facilitate an eventual merge (which looks more and more like the best way to go), I've inlined the citations, matching the papers with their subjects. (Current total, including some I found during the process: 16 citations, by 11 authors.) XOR'easter ( talk) 16:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with your colleagues, and the editors who added the paper you mention, that I would have associated the title with the continuous variables rather than the- actually slightly nebulous idea- of computation of continuous functions, so I would definitely agree that the page should be moved to a more appropriate title if kept. I agree that there is literature on this point, but I'm questioning whether or not it's a useful distinction- to make a slightly frivolous illustration it seems a little like having an article called "Scientists whose names contain only letters from the first half of the alphabet". It contains noteworthy subjects but the classification isn't itself of much note. Thank you for your work improving the article- even if the consensus is for deletion I think we can merge some of this content into
quantum computation.
Porphyro (
talk) 09:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- A comment- I think your lede is at odds to what the original article is supposed to be about. The article, and all its examples that I have checked, are about the application of regular quantum computing with a finite quantum dimension to problems that have a continous "flavour". The only source that uses the title phrase "continuous quantum computation" is the
Columbia grant page, and if you check the list of publications there, they are about digital quantum computation. Given that "continuous quantum computation" is not a phrase in regular usage, I would suggest that an article under that name, with the lede you have provided, is not tenable. I have reverted your edits- though I believe they would be a good start for a page called "Quantum information with continuous variables" or the like.
Porphyro (
talk) 18:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete this appears to be the research program of a single academic; without any notable results the program itself is not notable. As a "generic term" the article is low-quality and should be deleted as WP:TNT. Power~enwiki ( talk) 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge anything salvagable to quantum computing and redirect to preserve history and attribution. Spinning Spark 14:26, 14 May 2017 (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.
- 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. The consensus is to delete, with the possible merge of some of the material to quantum computing DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Continuous quantum computation
- Continuous quantum computation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article seems to fail both WP:NOTESSAY and possibly also WP:GNG. It does not really define its apparent topic, although it seems to be about the application of quantum computing to continous problems. I do not think the phrase "continuous quantum computing" is in common parlance with this meaning, however. The sources provided are applications of quantum computing to continuous rather than discrete problems; however I don't think they establish notability of this concept or phrase- none that I checked mention "continuous quantum computation" or any variant thereof. Porphyro ( talk) 09:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 4. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 09:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Seems to me the content could be merged into a section at Quantum computing. Continuous quantum computation was studied with DARPA funding. prokaryotes ( talk) 13:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree- although I would suggest that the amount of useful material on the page as it currently stands is absolutely minimal. I don't think personally that every project given a funding grant is notable, also.
Porphyro (
talk) 14:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Fully agree with you. prokaryotes ( talk) 14:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree- although I would suggest that the amount of useful material on the page as it currently stands is absolutely minimal. I don't think personally that every project given a funding grant is notable, also.
Porphyro (
talk) 14:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. This appears to be a personal essay on the topic. I'm not sure anything here is salvageable for our purposes. Continuous quantum computation may be a sufficiently notable topic for an article (unclear to me), but I think WP:TNT may be appropriate here. Ajpolino ( talk) 16:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Also happy to support merging the salvageable info into another article, but I lack the knowledge of the topic to do that. Kudos to@ XOR'easter: for all the work they've put into this. Ajpolino ( talk) 20:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep – I wrote a new lede (brief, but better than the cold open that was there before), and I condensed and reorganized the existing text so that it reads more like an article than an essay. The subject is definitely worth covering; one review by Braunstein and van Loock alone has 1350 citations in the Web of Science (and over two thousand citations by the more relaxed standards of Google Scholar).XOR'easter ( talk) 16:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- A comment- I think your lede is at odds to what the original article is supposed to be about. The article, and all its examples that I have checked, are about the application of regular quantum computing with a finite quantum dimension to problems that have a continous "flavour". The only source that uses the title phrase "continuous quantum computation" is the
Columbia grant page, and if you check the list of publications there, they are about digital quantum computation. Given that "continuous quantum computation" is not a phrase in regular usage, I would suggest that an article under that name, with the lede you have provided, is not tenable. I have reverted your edits- though I believe they would be a good start for a page called "Quantum information with continuous variables" or the like.
Porphyro (
talk) 18:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Fine. Informally polling colleagues, it seems that the sense of "continuous" used by the original article is significantly less common than the Braunstein–Lloyd–van Loock–etc. sense. (If anyone is curious, I have a draft of "Continuous-variable quantum computation" here.) XOR'easter ( talk) 18:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- One confusing thing is that the final reference (Adesso, G., Ragy, S. and Lee, A. R. (2014), Continuous variable quantum information: Gaussian states and beyond, arXiv:1401.4679) is very definitely about the infinite-Hilbert-space-dimension sense. So, this article has been somewhat of a blend since (...checks history...) 2014. I take this to suggest that it might be better to start from scratch. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Having gone over the article again, editing it for encyclopedic tone and so forth, I think the best course of action would either be to move it to something like "Quantum computation of continuous functions", or to merge it into an appropriate article (like
quantum computation, as suggested above). There does appear to be a legitimate literature on this general area, but the current name for the article is quite confusing, and it is possible that there simply isn't enough article here to stand on its own.
XOR'easter (
talk) 21:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with your colleagues, and the editors who added the paper you mention, that I would have associated the title with the continuous variables rather than the- actually slightly nebulous idea- of computation of continuous functions, so I would definitely agree that the page should be moved to a more appropriate title if kept. I agree that there is literature on this point, but I'm questioning whether or not it's a useful distinction- to make a slightly frivolous illustration it seems a little like having an article called "Scientists whose names contain only letters from the first half of the alphabet". It contains noteworthy subjects but the classification isn't itself of much note. Thank you for your work improving the article- even if the consensus is for deletion I think we can merge some of this content into
quantum computation.
Porphyro (
talk) 09:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reply to comment – I generally agree that the separation of this corner from the rest of the field is rather arbitrary. In order to facilitate an eventual merge (which looks more and more like the best way to go), I've inlined the citations, matching the papers with their subjects. (Current total, including some I found during the process: 16 citations, by 11 authors.) XOR'easter ( talk) 16:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with your colleagues, and the editors who added the paper you mention, that I would have associated the title with the continuous variables rather than the- actually slightly nebulous idea- of computation of continuous functions, so I would definitely agree that the page should be moved to a more appropriate title if kept. I agree that there is literature on this point, but I'm questioning whether or not it's a useful distinction- to make a slightly frivolous illustration it seems a little like having an article called "Scientists whose names contain only letters from the first half of the alphabet". It contains noteworthy subjects but the classification isn't itself of much note. Thank you for your work improving the article- even if the consensus is for deletion I think we can merge some of this content into
quantum computation.
Porphyro (
talk) 09:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- A comment- I think your lede is at odds to what the original article is supposed to be about. The article, and all its examples that I have checked, are about the application of regular quantum computing with a finite quantum dimension to problems that have a continous "flavour". The only source that uses the title phrase "continuous quantum computation" is the
Columbia grant page, and if you check the list of publications there, they are about digital quantum computation. Given that "continuous quantum computation" is not a phrase in regular usage, I would suggest that an article under that name, with the lede you have provided, is not tenable. I have reverted your edits- though I believe they would be a good start for a page called "Quantum information with continuous variables" or the like.
Porphyro (
talk) 18:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete this appears to be the research program of a single academic; without any notable results the program itself is not notable. As a "generic term" the article is low-quality and should be deleted as WP:TNT. Power~enwiki ( talk) 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge anything salvagable to quantum computing and redirect to preserve history and attribution. Spinning Spark 14:26, 14 May 2017 (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.