Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probability control

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. - Daniel.Bryant 08:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Probability control

Probability control (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I put a PROD tag on this article, but someone removed it, so here I am. As it stands, this article is errant nonsense, suggesting that a machine might be constructed to navigate among alternate universes (many-worlds interpretation of QM). DavidCBryant 15:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Just to be thorough, I ran a google search on "probability control" and got 14,100 hits. I reviewed the summaries for the first 50 of those. The term "probability control" is used to describe a feature of Code Division Multiplexing (CDMA) in Electrical Engineering. It is also used to describe some sort of statistical procedure in a number of math papers (I suspect this procedure is connected with the theory of Error Correcting Codes underlying CDMA technology … I didn't take the time to read any of the papers to be certain). It is also used to describe a feature of a number of video games. This article's reference to QM was the only one of the 50 that referred to quantum mechanics, and it came up at the top of list.

In my opinion, none of the legitimate uses of the phrase "probability control" are notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia, and the best thing to do is to put this article out of its misery. DavidCBryant 15:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete or merge with quantum immortality. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Extraordinary articles require extraordinary proof, but this article has no references. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete not only no references, but no content except the one sentence statement. DGG 11:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete This may be a logical consequence of quantum immortality, which is SF (by Bruce Sterling, IIRC); but that belongs in that article, if anywhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. (jarbarf) 00:53, 22 February 2007 (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.