Deletion of Hidden-measurements interpretation

Comment: The nomination does not advance a deletion rationale based on Wikipedia policy, but that said, the topic is not |notable by our standards. All the sources in the article are primary (by Aerts or his co-authors). The same goes for the citations to the paper that supposedly introduced the idea: they are by Aerts, by people who repeatedly co-authored with him, or passing mentions. One of those co-authors actually https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.02869 called the idea "overlooked". This interpretation doesn't even make the list when https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069 physicists are surveyed about their favorites. When an interpretation of quantum mechanics is so obscure that nobody has argued why it must be wrong, then it's ''really obscure
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:NFRINGE)

Comment: based on policy (not nom) a quick check can't find any independent sources 1. fails  with zero independent secondary sources (they're all non-independent as collaborators per the article) 2.  / promotion - when there's secondaries it can be written
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: The deletion rational is arguing that Hidden-measurement interpretation is wrong and foolish. This is not a valid reason to delete an article; as long as the topic receives |significant coverage from reliable independent sources then it is a notable encyclopedic topic. From a cursory glance at this article's citations, this criteria appears to be met. That said, citations are used very inappropriately in this article, for example, the 35 inline citations in a row in the Hidden-measurements_interpretation#History|#History section are clearly excessive. Further, most of the sources are papers by the same authors; some of the sources even look like different versions of the same paper. These citations fail to provide a neutral point of view on the topic, instead promoting the work of this small group of researchers to excess. An expert needs to read the papers that are cited and see which ones actually support content in the article, removing the others.Finally, if this interpretation of QM is clearly flawed, we need a criticisms section. Such a section, properly sources, will go a long way to combat the neutrality issues in the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)