Universality and quantum systems: It seems to be vague but articulate enough to seem to introduce a topic without using any important keywords.  For a "universality" article it is not clear how general this notion is.  It can be seen from this talk, that this article should have never been considered to be moved into the mainspace.  The article also has been an WP:Orphan since 2015.  Let me discuss the sources: Stanley 1999, refers to "universality" to talk about universality class , which already has an article.  J. Avery's book, has no entry on universality on its index.  S. Gupta beamer is not a valid source, and its calculation seems to be the base for the second section of the article.  P. Lepage arxiv is also not a valid source, or at least not enough to prove notability.  Additionally, It seems to be related to effective theories and never uses the word "universality".  I have not been able to verify the notability of this article, thus I propose deletion.  A Universality (physics) article could be considered given things like lepton universality , universality principle , universal conductance fluctuations , universality (dynamical systems) , universality class but I have never seen such an inclusive treatment.  If somebody can clarify what it is about then maybe it can be merged somewhere else.  ReyHahn ( talk ) 15:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header.   Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.  — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 16:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Undecided .  This is probably an WP:ESSAY if what the currently-cited sources contain are any indication.  However, I did find some papers from significant academic journals, "Universality in Quantum Computation" and "Thermodynamic universality of quantum Carnot engines" , just from a Google search with the phrase being specifically the title of the Wikipedia article.  A Google Scholar article also finds several academic articles primarily about the connection between universality and various quantum concepts, so... maybe an article like this could exist?  User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment "Universality" is a technical term in statistical physics, referring to how sometimes the behavior of a large aggregate can be independent of the details about individual pieces.  We see the same bell-shaped kind of curve all over the place, for example.  "Universality" has a different technical meaning in quantum computation.  There, it's basically the quantum counterpart of the idea that you can implement any truth table you want by combining AND, OR, and NOT gates.  The "thermodynamic universality of quantum Carnot engines" paper linked above is using the word in yet a third sense, referring to how all Carnot engines have the same efficiency.  Throwing the title into a search engine will inevitably bring back a horrible mix of all these meanings , which is pretty much useless for determining whether we need an article with this title and if the present text is anywhere near what it should be.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Man, if it were not for this darn brain fog I have had for several months, I might get some of those technical terms.  "Gates", "truth tables", "third sense".  User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 14:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a solid introduction to logic gates and truth tables in Larry Gonick 's Cartoon Guide to the Computer .  I don't know of a comparably straightforward introduction to the quantum version; the idea is covered in Mike and Ike , but nobody really picks up that book without at least a couple years of a physics degree first.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 23:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete OK, I've read it, gone away, and read it again.  I don't think there's an encyclopedia topic here, nor any material worth trying to salvage.  This reads like someone trying to write a textbook, which we aren't ... while being too confused about the actual ideas to do that.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 02:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The introduction discusses Kadanoff's definition of universality, but then says that it not quite the kind of universality this article is about.  We are left with a very vague notion of what the topic of the article actually is.  To me, the selection of topics seems very much inspired by the last reference ( https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.nucl-th/9706029 ) which, however, does not mention universality, but is about effective low-energy models ( effective field theories ).  One could interpret effective field theory as being the topic of this article, but since the author avoids the that term, and instead replaces it with that vague notion of universality, this article falls into the category of original research .  Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 07:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, per ReyHahn.  An article could be written on this, but it's not this article.  TNT is the only option.  Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 23:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the above plus the discussion at Talk:Universality and quantum systems .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Said discussion has been copy-pasted to this AfD's talk page .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 02:55, 28 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete