Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum coherence in photosynthesis

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 redirect‎ to Quantum biology#Photosynthesis. – robertsky (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum coherence in photosynthesis

[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)

A long essay, full of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH with many irrelevant sections plus some dubious interpretation of quantum mechanics and inelastic scattering. Major sections are unsourced, and while on their own they are valid science, many are padding. I see no way a return to draft would help, it needs WP:TNT. At most a two or three paragraph description that the initial excitation may be coherent over a finite spatial range (Fermi's golden rule), which is the physics here (as against incoherent at the single site level). PROD was contested, so we go to AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is indeed a lot of padding. The experiments are already discussed at Fenna–Matthews–Olson complex#Test object (the discussion is short, but more critical and more up-to-date there), the rest seems like speculation. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Redirect to Quantum biology#Photosynthesis is the best option. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Quantum biology#Photosynthesis The science behind this is already explained much better there. It is unlikely that anything in this essay is an editor's original research. There are plenty of such statements in published sources. This is a serious topic deserving of an article, with many sources, including review articles in respected journals. However the tone, structure, and one-sided point of view are inappropriate; I don't see how the current contents could evolve into a proper article. Better to remove it until the Quantum biology section grows large enough to need a separate article. A more balanced treatment of the topic is given in Section 4.1. "Photosysnthesis" and Section 4.1.1. "Excitation energy transfer" in the article

Marais, Adriana; Adams, Betony; Ringsmuth, Andrew K.; et al. (November 14, 2018). "The future of quantum biology". Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 15 (148): 20180640. doi:10.1098/rsif.2018.0640.

StarryGrandma (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. To paraphrase, it's emerging but has significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't a topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The topic should remain findable within Wikipedia with a redirect. The several serious review articles from 2012-2014 make it an acceptable Wikipedia topic:
- Ishizaki, Akihito; Fleming, Graham R. (2012). "Quantum Coherence in Photosynthetic Light Harvesting". Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics. 3 (1): 333–361. doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-020911-125126.
- Chenu, Aurélia; Scholes, Gregory D. (2015). "Coherence in Energy Transfer and Photosynthesis". Annual Review of Physical Chemistry. 66 (1): 69–96. doi:10.1146/annurev-physchem-040214-121713.
- Fassioli, Francesca; Dinshaw, Rayomond; Arpin, Paul C.; Scholes, Gregory D. (2014). "Photosynthetic light harvesting: excitons and coherence". Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 11 (92): 20130901. doi:10.1098/rsif.2013.0901. PMC 3899860. PMID 24352671.
Interest seems to have died down once it was decided that coherence, whether the normal short one on photon absorption or the proposed longer one, would not explain the unusually high efficiency of such absorption. However quantum coherence is a hot topic, and there are ongoing speculative articles on the topic in the less careful journals, along the lines of the current content of this article. We should be sure that a search here gives results and leads to something sensible. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it seems to me clear that the consensus is for a redirect, but which? StarryGrandmas Quantum biology#Photosynthesis is different from @Jähmefyysikko's Fenna–Matthews–Olson complex#Test object (see also Fenna–Matthews–Olson complex#Quantum light harvesting). Maybe time for a few comments to decide which. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concept isn't tied to a particular light-harvesting complex. LMO is just in certain bacteria, LCHII is in green plants. So better as Quantum biology#Photosynthesis. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. Quantum biology#Photosynthesis has better coverage. . Unifonisagoodalphabet (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Quantum biology#Photosynthesis. Ths seems like a better place for this. Not enough secondary sources to establish notability. The atricle relies alot on primary sources at the moment. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2025 (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.