Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continuous quantum computation

Continuous quantum computation

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fully agree with you. prokaryotes (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]