Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EP quantum mechanics

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. Geschichte (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EP quantum mechanics

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article has languished in this sorry state for more than a decade. I searched for "EP quantum mechanics" in google scholar, and got no hits, only 2 false positives. Whatever this is, it's not notable, and not even the article creator seems to care about it anymore.

I had PROD'ed the article, which was deleted, and then undeleted after an IP user contested it. The reasons given were that the paper upon which the article is based has a lot of citations, and that its authors Faraggi and Matone have written several papers on the subject that were themselves highly cited.

None of this addresses the problem. First of all, what is even this article about? The article claims to be about a theory of motion called "EP quantum mechanics". Well, "EP quantum mechanics" only exists in Wikipedia. Maybe the article is instead about the "equivalence postulate of quantum mechanics"? So not about an alternative theory, but about this equivalence postulate (which, by the way, is not the equivalence principle)? A search for "equivalence postulate" and "quantum mechanics" together does give us several results in Google Scholar, which are almost exclusively papers by Faraggi and Matone published in garbage journals or unpublished. I think it's clear that this fails the WP:GNG.

In addition, pretty much the whole content of this article is reproduced in a section of quantum potential, so deleting this article won't lead to any loss of information. This also gives us a hint what the article is about: it seems to be a variant of Bohmian mechanics. Tercer (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LeBron4 (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the content of those papers is worth writing about, this article isn't the way to do it. XOR'easter (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to quantum potential, since the material is already there. --Bduke (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the expression "EP quantum mechanics" doesn't exist outside Wikipedia, I don't think that's a useful redirect. Tercer (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, redirects are cheap, but we do generally prefer them to be plausible search terms. I don't think that's the case here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2020 (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.