Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Memory Matrix

Quantum Memory Matrix

[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)

LLM-written article about obscure crackpot theory. Tercer (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's sadly a fair ammount of mainstream cover on QMM in general, but if this is AI slop (I haven't read the article), just delete it / G15 it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the article is obviously LLM-generated, there has been some human review to remove the most egregious mistakes, so it doesn't fit G15. Tercer (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no ties to anything that would make it notable.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Physics-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 10:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination is a bit unconventional, but I think there are strong grounds for delete for other conventional reasons. (AI is not grounds as I do not see definitive evidence for unreviewed AI.)
Explanation (my version of nom). This page fails WP:TOOSOON, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The first part of the page on The Quantum Memory Matrix might be OK as it is based upon a peer reviewed paper, albeit in a low reputation pay-to-play journal and only has 10 cites of which 7 are self-cites. It is a hypothesis, and the supposed verification of aspects using a quantum computer (arXiv:2502.157660) might be OK. However, that paper and most of the others are all arXiv, which means that they are not WP:RS and should be considered as self-published until (and iff) they are peer reviewed. As such the use of them in a conservative encyclopedia is highly inappropriate. The connection from the (unreviewed) experiment to the explanation of vast amounts of other science is definitely WP:OR. The coverage in various popular science articles is churnalism and does not qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Iff the scientific community accepts this approach then a page can be written, but not now.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "verification" using a quantum computer is not OK. It is a trivial experiment of no scientific value whatsoever, it amounts to verifying that the calculations are correct. And it was performed by Neukart himself. The supposed coverage in popular science outlets is all churnalism based on a New Scientist article written by Neukart himself. Tercer (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]