Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bell test loopholes

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Bell test experiments. Deathphoenix 01:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bell test loopholes

This is a POV fork of Bell test experiments. It should be partially merged into Bell test experiments and redirected, but original research by C. Thompson and references to her papers should only be kept if editors other than Caroline Thompson consider it relevant. --Pjacobi 10:28, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

Remark. Dont' forget Loopholes in optical Bell test experiments. CSTAR 18:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge (or partial merge). Upon a Google search of Bell test loopholes, eight of the first ten entries (that is the 1st page entries) point to CT's contribution or references to it (one of the ten points to Real Estate loopholes). It doesn't get much better on te second page. What this proves is that CT's efforts have succeeded in converting WP into a vehicle for promoting her ideas.CSTAR 17:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• As the main author of the page, I say keep as it is. I created this page as a separate one so that it could conveniently be referenced directly from a general page such as Bell's theorem or from more specialist pages such as Bell test experiments or Bell inequalities.

Incidentally, CSTAR's interpretation of his Google findings is very misleading. As far as Google was concerned, I was an authority on the subject before I started contributing to wikipedia.

If the page were redirected, where would this be to? The page structure of the group of pages is logical as it is (apart from the fact that I'd forgotten that there was already a redirect from Bell's inequalities to Bell's theorem.) Caroline Thompson 19:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Authority? Oh really?

Cranks, Crackpots, Kooks and Loons on the net

CSTAR 20:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:04, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• redirect -Lethe | Talk 11:54, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge anything useful. Possible deficiencies in the Bell test experiments should be addressed there, not forked off into a separate article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That sounds a reasonable compromise, though it may then be necessary to say more about the loopholes in other pages. If the main material is incorporated into Bell test experiments, will a reference to my own papers -- at least to my 1996 Chaotic Ball paper -- be allowed, both here and from other pages, in particular CHSH inequality? It is widely acknowledged to give clear explanation of the fair sampling loophole. [See Google! I don't know why CSTAR thinks it a bad thing that wikipedia is on the top of the list for Bell test loophole information. He should be proud of the fact. Caroline Thompson 09:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Dunno if it's too late in the game, but anyway: merge and redirect to Bell test experiments. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.