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 delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topological computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for IP editor 121.45.223.38, who wrote "In my assessment, it is a crank article with no independent citations. I am neutral. Ansh666 09:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Can anyone please clarify why a field that relies on Maxwell and so is presumably based on geometry (i.e. distance and angle are crucial) is being described as "topology" (relative sequence is important, but geometrical alignment is ignorable)? This sort of elastic use of well-defined terms is a classic sign of psychoceramic theorising. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks either like a crank article or as if someone is trying to split off a subset of Quantum Computing. Soft Delete as I am no expert in the field. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not think this topic is encyclopedic and it should be deleted as it is certainly not a mainstream computing research area and, as far as I can tell, the applications to computing of the described methods are hypothesised by only one or two authors: V. I. Gvozdev and G. A. Kouzaev, Topological computer, Computers and People, 1, pp. 2–5, 1992 is the only directly relevant reference given. A literature search on Google books and scholar.google.com reveals only a couple of self-references by GA Kouzaev. (Note that there is a topic Topological quantum computer, referred to in the article, which is quite different and does appear to have a substantial independent research literature and research community.) Also, the comments to this article over the last several years draw the same conclusion- for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.159.68 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only relevant citations seems to be those by V.I. Gvozdev and G.A. Kouzaev. All others look like red herrings. Doesn't pass the smell test. —Ruud 16:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Meaningless buzzword soup, given a little flavor by occasional name-dropping. Not even wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is, in my opinion, possible (that is, "not impossible") that there might, someday, long in the future, be such circuitry developed. Actual research might discover such, and development produce such. Until at least the first, this is a pipe dream. htom (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2013 (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.