- Xanadu Quantum Technologies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Since the nomination for deletion, there has been an effort to add more sources to the article to improve notability but it does not seem this was taken into account. A few examples of sources added (on top of the original 16 sources submitted as a part of the draft article which was accepted on Feb 17, 2021) IEEE Spectrum, Nature, and Gizmodo. Also, recent coverage from ArsTechnica and Science X. JamesHunton (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I can't see what was deleted, but if there were 16 sources in the article, the participants had ample sources to look at in determining whether this passed WP:NORG, and I'm not sure the coverage provided here helps (not mentioned in the Nature article, phys.org looks like a press release, Ars Technica isn't significant coverage, ieee.org might be okay.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]- Endorse - A correct assessment of consensus by the closer:
- I didn't see the deleted article, but the participants did, and we don't need to second-guess them.
- The AFD doesn't include an analysis of sources, which is sometimes provided either by the nominator or by the author:
- Analysis of sources is a nice-to-have, not required.
- We assume that the participants did any analysis of sources that was required.
- If the appellant has new sources, they are welcome to submit a new draft to AFC.
- A new article that doesn't go through AFC is likely to be tagged for G4.
- It might be a good idea to provide a copy of the deleted article to the reviewer so that they will know whether the new draft is G4-proof.
- Correct assessment of the deletion discussion.
- New Draft permitted.
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Vacate and relist IEEE Spectrum and Ars Technica sources listed by the requesting author are THIS WEEK sources, both RS, both non-promotional. If there were 16 non-RS/funding sources, that may have hidden the real actual RS that are presented here. Numerically, the delete close is realistic. Sourcing, another week's run and a look at these *just* published sources should likely have swayed the tide. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Vacate and relist new sources are new sources. And IEEE Spectrum and Nature are about as top-tier as you get. Do I believe the claims here? Not sure. But the sourcing is impeccable. For delete to have a strong argument at this point, a very strong argument about why we should ignore these sources would have to be presented. Thus far, no such arguments have been forthcoming. Hobit (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The Nature article didn't even discuss the organisation at all. SportingFlyer T·C 22:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The nature article listed is the commentary on the paywalled article linked here which is written by multiple Xanadu engineers, as you can see from the author affiliations on the non-paywalled portion of the page. And yeah, Nature is peer reviewed and highly respected, and even though it covers a variety of topics, this isn't uncharacteristic for their coverage. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is more than a bit understated. Nature (journal) is probably the second-best peer-reviewed science publication in the world. Hobit (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist looks a good idea to me – the close was likely right but the result was wrong. Whatever happens here, if the article is recreated any WP:G4 comparison should be against the version at the time of AfD nomination and not deletion. Many admins make this type of check anyway but some do not and that prejudices references and content added during an AfD discussion. Thincat (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, could not reasonably have been closed any other way. But WP:IAR undelete and relist per JClemens. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Do not allow re-creation in mainspace. New sources?
- IEEE Spectrum. Not independent of Xanadu.
- Nature. Does not mention Xanadu.
- Gizmodo. Not independent of Xanadu.
- The article was properly deleted. Fails WP:CORP. Lots of promotional sources exist but these cannot be used to demonstrate notability. Allow re-drafting, with advice to follow WP:THREE, but respect the consensus to delete and do not attempt recreation in mainspace for at least six months. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The IEEE Spectrum article is written by a well-regarded science writer in one of the best possible publications for such an article. It does appear to be mostly based off of an interview, but large parts are not. The Nature article you link to is a summary of another, peer-reviewed article about the technology that Xanadu is using (published as a journal article rather than a news item). The paper is written by folks from Xanadu and the news article is exactly a secondary source summarizing that work and putting it context. The Gizmodo article is written by someone with an MS in Physics, an AAAS Mass Media fellowship and a Fullbright. It doesn't feel at all like an interview of any kind. Are you claiming this author just copied a press release or something? It looks like a fine source. Could you explain in more detail why these sources aren't over the bar for inclusion? Hobit (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The IEEE Spectrum article is obviously written in close collaboration with Xanadu, and basically all of the content is delivered to the writer courtesy of Xanadu. The named author, Charles Q. Choi, is a long term freelance writer, but the photos are Xanadu, and throughout the wording is, starting with the subtitle, "Xanadu says ...". "Xanadu notes..." "Xanadu now aims..." The style is positive to promotional about the fabulous possibilities of quantum computing and what this startup "could" do. Where the article is introducing quantum computing, it is facts that belong in the article quantum computing. Where the article talks about Xanadu, the content is direct quotations from Xanadu. The article even explicitly links to accessing one of their products, followed by a HOWTO, it is unashamed promotion. This is not independent, this does not satisfy the WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- IEEE Spectrum is, according to our article, a peer reviewed journal. To throw out an article just because of its writing style, without regard to the award-winning and long-lasting publication in which it is written is nonsensical. More to the point, this is exactly the sort of thing one would expect to find the IEEE taking note of. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Writing style is not the hard reason for throwing it, but it fits the hard evidence of non-independence. The hard evidence is the secondary source material in the article all comes from Xanadu. Can you pull out a sentence or two that is the author's opinion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The GIZMODO article is basically the same, with a difference freelance writer. It does contain one single tidbit of attempt at independence with "Xanadu’s machine is currently equipped to execute only a specific set of algorithms, said physicist Giulia Ferrini of Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, who researches algorithms for photonic quantum computers and is not affiliated with Xanadu". But that's it. Everything else is close perspective, sitting at a next next to the Xanadu PR person. In neither article does the author voice any personal comment on the material. Non-independent, does not meet the GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also quotes from an independent person at a National Lab. Also the author writes a lot on Quantum computers and lasers. This appears to be her area of specialty. The background stuff is very unlikely to be coming from the company--she knows this stuff. Hobit (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I may have missed "quotes from an independent person at a National Lab". Can you quote for me and I'll look again. The author knows this stuff? Great, but we need *her* opinion/comment/analysis, not her repetition of Xanadu supplied facts and statements. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Last 2 paragraphs. And you are attributing all the background material to the company. She (the author) wrote that and knows what she's talking about. She's written a lot on Q. computing and on lasers. You see to be assuming she's just copying stuff form the company with no evidence. Hobit (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 2nd last paragraph. “Xanadu is looking to its customers to ...”. Seriously? You think this is commentary about Xanadu? I think it is full on Xanadu promotion.
”Researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for example, have purchased access to Xanadu’s devices in order to design the next generation of supercomputers.” Says who? Who possibly told the report this but Xanadu?
They think that future supercomputers could contain a ...” This is “behind the characters eyes” writing, not even “behind their should”, and definitely not the distant perspective adopted by independent secondary sources. Is Oak Ridge quantum computer scientist Travis Humble notable? Travis S Humble may be Wikipedia-notable. He’s at ORNL, not NIST, did the freelance writer get that wrong, or did they not even speak to him really? Humble is an agency tweeter, aka promoter. If he were notable (had a Wikipedia article), and was tweeting “Xanadu Quantum Technologies”, then that would be of interest. Otherwise, no. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]
In their efforts ... Oak Ridge has bought access to other ...” This is customer testimonial, this is blatant promotion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Last paragraph. “To be sure, Xanadu’s new devices are still very much”. Promotion cliche.
“It’s like when you hit a growth spurt when you’re young, and you outgrow all your clothes and get awkward,” said Humble. “Quantum computing is off to its next plateau in development.” This is about the technology, not the startup. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I'm too close (I have a PhD in a fairly closely-related area and have worked with some significant people in the field of QC), but yeah, talking to someone from Oak Ridge is exactly who one should talk to. In the US they'd be expected to be one of the leading consumers of such a device, if not *the* main one. Nature is probably the 2nd best science publication in the world. That Nature choose to publish the paper AND have someone write an article on the company speaks volumes to me. This is as high-end as you can get. Hobit (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything published about the Xanadu startup is directory information or too close. Are you talking about the startup, or the technology. Quantum computing or Quantum technology is notable, but notability is not derived. Nature (journal) is a high-end source, but it does not mention Xanadu. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Hobit, Nature (journal) chose someone to write an article on Xanadu??? What are you talking about? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SmokeyJoe I believe Hobit is referencing the following Nature article Photonic chip brings optical quantum computers a step closer which is referencing the scientific publication released by Xanadu and NIST researchers Quantum circuits with many photons on a programmable nanophotonic chip which is a source used in the Technology section of the page. JamesHunton (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The first doesn’t mention “Xanadu”. The second is by Xanadu and so is non-independent of Xanadu. You need commentary by others, about Xanadu. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, last time I'm commenting here as I'm coming close to tearing my hair out (it's been a long day in addition to this discussion). The second article is by Xanadu but is peer reviewed in a highly (and I mean very very highly) prestigious journal. The first article is entirely about the second. Just because the company name isn't mentioned in the first doesn't mean it's not all about the work of the company. Because it 100% is exactly about that. It even has commentary that is negative about the work "Without doubt, the authors’ demonstration of quantum sampling on a programmable photonic chip using highly squeezed states is remarkable and represents a milestone in this field. However, the number of commercial applications that can be implemented using the current architecture is limited. Completely different platforms are required to run heftier algorithms, such as Shor’s algorithm for factoring large numbers into prime numbers, in an error-free manner." The author is A) notable (though he lacks a Wikipedia article, he makes it past well past WP:PROF per [1]) and B) providing 3rd party analysis of the product, and research, of the company. Hobit (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree Ulrik Lund Andersen looks like a missing biography. Wikipedia is not a reviewer of Nature articles. There is no independent sourced commentary on the startup, yet found. If we ignored WP:CORP and allowed this startup company an article, it could be filled only with directory formation and content deriving from itself. It really isn’t complicated. The way forward is WP:THREE, definitely not an overturn. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have temporarily undeleted the article for review. You can find the text in the edit history DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It was WP:Reference bombed with promotional and directory sources. Completely lacking, to a cursory search, is any secondary sourced content that talks about the company Xanadu. Look for a piece in which any author uses an adjective in connection to the company, and then ask for 100 words or two running sentences for a plausibility threshold that anyone independent has ever commented on this company. The reference bombing makes it very hard. Hence, WP:THREE. Clearly, something is happening, so it is good for it to be in draftspace, while people keep a lookout for sources suitable for an encyclopedia, not directory information, not publication coverage, not process PR releases. There may be suitable coverage, but there is an awful lot of promotion of this well funded startup company. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm on the "these new sources aren't enough for a promotional article" train, but the question really is whether we should allow a relist and have that discussion there, or simply endorse the deletion. I'm sticking with an endorse. SportingFlyer T·C 10:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are new sources emerging every day (e.g., PhysicsWorld) with commentary from leading experts. JamesHunton (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The commentary is about the technology, not the startup. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about the company and their product. Hobit (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. Since we're all agreed that PR about funding isn't sufficient coverage, if we don't allow coverage on a product or technology specifically and uniquely identified with a particular company, on what basis would we ever find a newer company notable? Do we have to wait until their song or mascot are independently notable? Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jclemens, are you saying Quantum technology is specifically and uniquely associated with Xanadu? That’s nonsense. I think you have it backwards. The technology is notable, and the startup is one of many companies working on it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SmokeyJoe The technology being referenced (programmable photonic quantum computers using squeezed states of light) is, as of now, unique to the company Xanadu and a quick patent search confirms this Methods and apparatus for producing highly tunable squeezed light.JamesHunton (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I said nothing of the sort. I asked a question, which hasn't been answered. I mean, I assume that there's an answer, and your response isn't just deflecting. I was actually serious. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was struggling to understand what you were saying. There is ground breaking new research. A startup company made a Nature publication on it. One of many companies unless you define the technology so narrowly that it could be a patent application. What do we have to wait for? To cover the startup, independent of the technology? We have to wait independent others to comment on the company. It’s all in the WP:GNG, with elaboration at WP:CORP. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I believe that coverage of the company's notable contributions to a notable topic (which is my assessment of the former, the latter I expect to be consensus) is sufficient to justify an article. I don't think we need to wait for coverage of the company as a company, because what we get at this point in their corporate trajectory is the run-of-the mill press releases we see. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist There's no consensus here from respected editors on what the new sources say. The AfD should be relisted to take the new sources under consideration and the previous participants pinged. The closer made no error in closing. SportingFlyer T·C 15:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and userfy The latest sources are sufficient for determining Xanadu's notability. Furthermore, the company's research page, Xanadu Research, provides 60+ academic publications demonstrating the company's contributions to the field of quantum information sciences. JamesHunton (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You are already the nominator and should not Bold a WP:!vote as if you are a new participant. “Overturn” and “userfy” are not compatible. I oppose the “overturn”, there being zero basis to do so, but support slowing userfication so that you can add sources as they are found. Note WP:THREE. Many non-qualifying (meets the WP:GNG) sources do not help, they hinder. It only takes two or three independent, reliably published sources, that discuss the topic (Xanadu not quantum computing) to demonstrate Wikipedia-notability. Companies (as opposed to technology) are held to a high bar, see WP:CORP. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SmokeyJoe Thank you for the feedback, noted on the bolding. I would like to clarify that the Xanadu page is providing information on the company's history and its unique architecture for building photonic quantum computers. There is no other company that is working on this. JamesHunton (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not for original provision of company history. Wikipedia covers companies’ histories only after others have done so already. Wikipedia not a directory or a news service. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
