Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antiverse
I do not think that  really applies, at least not the way it usually does in physics-related AfD's (perpetual motion machines, etc.). The work was published in a Physical Review Letters|real journal. My concern is that it's simply |too soon &mdash; one very recent paper and a splash of press do not the basis for an article make. The ''Physics World'' item is just an interview with one of the authors &mdash; basically a press release in all but name, without any effort to even get the standard quote from an expert not involved in the work. ''New Scientist'' is New_Scientist#Criticism|famously sensationalist; I wouldn't rely on their reporting to establish the notability of anything, though they're probably OK for ''supplementing'' material on a topic whose notability is already demonstrated. The ''Futurism'' (who?) source is just a pointer to the ''Physics World'' interview, with a few brief paragraphs of summary, so it's neither independent nor in-depth. (Amusingly, it also gets the title of the journal wrong: ''Physical Review of sic Letters.'') The publicity people at Perimeter Institute earned their paychecks, but proposals like this appear all the time, and few of them go anywhere. This article is simply not warranted at the present time
— User:XOR, 19:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:FRINGE||WP:TOOSOON (Wikipedia:Fringe theories)