Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanadu Quantum Technologies (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Between this discussion and the DRV it really does seem that this is currently the stance of the community at this point in time. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xanadu Quantum Technologies

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

Xanadu Quantum Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The community reached consensus to delete this article at this very recent AfD. The deletion decision was reviewed at this very recent DRV, where it was noted that there are fresh sources not considered in the previous AfD. I have relisted the debate at AfD for the community to decide whether the fresh sources are sufficient to change the outcome.—S Marshall T/C 10:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of the numerous references, numbers 11 through 19 are notices about funding; references 20 through 25 are about the general subject of quantum computing. 26 is a publication by the company.., So we only need consider the first 10. 2, 3, & 4 were present in the earlier version. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient coverage for for NCORP taking into account the welcome comment above. gidonb (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are referring to the comment by DGG, I'm not sure how "welcome" that is towards keeping the article, as he is basically pointing out that a substantial majority of sources cited in the article are unusable for a determination of notability. BD2412 T 20:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure. IF my objective was to keep the article THAN it would have been an unwelcome comment. Apperantly keep isn't an objective. The objective is to find the right solution for this article. Keep is "only" my conclusion ;-) gidonb (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensyus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 19:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As DGG notes, sources 11-26 can be dismissed for the purposes of determining notability. That leaves sources 1-10 and those of Hobit. WP:NCORP provides guidance on source verification.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Xanadu content is primarily company sourced, and non-quote content doesn't count for N. Yes Xanadu isn't primary focus - 7/45 paras. ✘ No
Yes ...close enough. Yes No Stock information ✘ No
Yes Yes No a listicle ✘ No
Yes Yes No passing mention ✘ No
Yes Some XQT sources but enough not Yes Yes But note TOOSOON from final para ✔ Yes
No Xanadu content from Xanadu at conference Yes No minor mentions in much larger article ✘ No
Yes Yes No one of a list as part of larger article ✘ No
No looks PR derived Yes Yes but PR... ✘ No
No PR derived Yes Yes but PR... ✘ No
No PR derived Yes Yes but PR... ✘ No
No Independent background, but XQT material clearly from XQT Yes Yes ✘ No
Yes includes qualitative commentary on XQT material Yes Yes but note TOOSOON from the final two paras ✔ Yes
No XQT paras briefly summarise XQT material Maybe sufficiently Yes Although most of the article is background ✘ No
No re-reporting (no qualitative XQT content) Yes No re-reporting Nature ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
My feeling is there's enough to demonstrate noteworthiness (ie: incorporation into an article on the topic), but not to demonstrate notability -- and that WP:TOOSOON still applies, though obviously less so than at the launch of the first AFD. Here's a thought experiment: Let's say that XQT never achieves anything more than the current state of things - some other product launches which "captures" the QC market, or the technical issues mentioned at the end of the Nature article prove insurmountable. Would you expect this article to survive AFD in a decade as a standalone article with only currently available sourcing to improve it, if looking back this were not the next big thing, but an evolutionary dead end?
Obviously my assessments above may be disputed in some cases (noting the previous debates at DRV). Where a !voter believes that a source I've listed as not counting actually meets all requirements or vv, it may be useful to break out a subsubsection to address that particular source.
Also ping @XOR'easter, Redoryxx, HighKing, SportingFlyer, Robert McClenon, Jclemens, Thincat, Stifle, SmokeyJoe, and Daniel: ... and I don't think I've missed any AFD/DRV participants ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nature article does not meet the GNG because it does not discuss the topic, the topic being the company as distinct from the technology. The article does not even mention “Xanadu”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gizmodo article does not meet the GNG because the article is not independent of the company. You can tell by the photographs and quotes being supplied by Xanadu. On closer analysis, you can tell that all of the substantive information comes directly from Xanadu, and the freelance author has merely stitched their information into flowing prose. On analysis, you can find no comment opinion critique by the freelance author, she has supplied no creative input that qualifies as “secondary source” material. It is Xanadu native advertising. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So many people seem blown away by the technology and sources discussing the technology that they seem to forget that the topic is a startup company that needs to meet WP:CORP. The many sources are about quantum computing. This startup does not meet WP:CORP, or the WP:GNG, and it should be draftified as WP:TOOSOON. Draftify, and require WP:THREE to be followed before mainspacing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that I don't find the above convincing. This fear of using quotes from the company is wrong-headed. The SPIE article puts Xanadu's work in context quite nicely. For thei Gizmodo article a quote like "Xanadu’s new devices are still very much part of quantum computing’s adolescence," is just fine--companies working on the forefront of a topic are by no means excluded from the encyclopedia. Same with the Nature article. (And, again, I'll note that Nature is the Washington Post of science sources--it is one of the two most prestigious academic journals in *all* of science--that puts it in the top 0.1% easily. Things that make Nature are regarded important by the scientific community) The re-reporting of a scientific article is *exactly* what a secondary source *is*. I could go on, but this passes the GNG with flying colors. Given all the previous fights over this, I'm not coming back to this discussion--all we do is go in circles (see the DRV). Hobit (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There’s no circling. It is simple. The secondary source content you admire is not about the topic, where the topic is a startup company, as distinct from the technology they work on. Nature is a fantastic source on quantum computing, but it says nothing about the startup company. Xanadu’s work is properly covered at quantum computing and other related articles. And writing a story based on information supplied directly from the company to the journalist is not independent of the company. It may be good reporting, but it is not historiological independence. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The technology might be worthy of an article, but I'm still not sure the company passes WP:NORG. Commenting instead of !voting delete because I haven't done a deep dive of the topic and am going off my memory from what I looked into at the DRV, may change this later if I care enough. SportingFlyer T·C 15:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per the advice of SmokeyJoe. Or delete — the current draft isn't so fantastic that it needs to be preserved as a starting point, rather than beginning afresh when (if) the company's notability has been established. The topic of quantum computing is definitely notable, and there may be enough to write about something that the company has done in an article about the technology more broadly (e.g., Boson sampling), but we don't have enough about the company as a company to meet WP:NORG. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia itself, and so mentions in other articles can't be considered to count towards notability of the company. (The examples cited above are incidental mentions and appearances in lists, which are hardly even suggestive of notability.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I will comment that User:SportingFlyer says that the technology may be worthy of an article, but the company does not pass corporate notability. Yes. The technology has an article, quantum computing, and the technology has not been delivered yet because the technology is fringe science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the extraordinary proof has not been provided. So the company should only be consideed notable if it passes an objective test for corporate notability, such as listing on a stock exchange. This is another entrant into a fringe field that might or might not ever work out. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I originally voted to delete but I think this company actually has enough coverage between Gizmodo, SPIE, CDNET, and IEEE. I agree that many of the sources aren’t helpful for establishing notability of the company, but looks like there’s enough here without those. Redoryxx (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per SmokeyJoe where the article can be improved and submit through AfC. Riteboke (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently there is a bit of a split between Keep and either draftify/delete. While I know a relist is not ideal, I suspect it's preferable to needing a second DRV. Lots of good source review occurring.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xanadu_Quantum_Technologies_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1019394610"