Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MaxEnt thermodynamics

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 of the debate was keep. – ABCD^e✉ 00:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A list of references for a nonexistent article. Denni☯ 00:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - obvious reasons. Some guy 01:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Give me a chance(!) More of the article should be up today. Jheald 07:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to use one of the templates at Wikipedia:Edit_lock to mark when you're currently editing an article. Although, if you're creating from scratch it then it would probably be best to write out a decent stub in an off-line editor first, then upload it all at once. --Aquillion 08:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Principle of Maximum Entropy - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The PME article stands well on its own, as a discussion of the principle in statistical inference generally. The present article is intended to specifically review the application of PME to thermodynamics; and the philiosophical take that holding such a position leads to, regarding the conceptual questions of thermodynamics. Jheald 10:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• See, now I'm confused. I thought this was an encyclopaedia, not a place to publish detailed theses on nuances of complex technical subjects. As it is it reads like OR. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Zis, I am familiar with this and neither PME nor the application to statistical mechanics is OR in the sense you mean. There are in fact quite a few books on this stuff. One of the best is:

• Kapur, J. N.; Kesevan, H. K. (1992). Entropy optimization principles with applications. Boston: Academic Press. ISBN 0-123-97670-7.

The strict Bayesian interpretation of statistics is internally controversial, but one of the nice things about this book is that avoids philosophy and sticks to the main point: this is darned useful stuff. There is also a nice article by J. N. Kapur in an Indian journal giving one of the best short introductions to entropy, which uses the PME point of view. Also excellent is Guiasu's article in the Mathematical Intelligencer, which also uses the PME point of view. ---CH (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cross-references to it now in place. Jheald 13:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Jheald has been busy today. Let's wait to see what it looks like in a day or two. Tedernst 20:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Removing my nomination now that something is here. Note to author - please consider adding a few paragraphs up front in layman talk before getting on to the partial differentials. There ought to be something you can say about maximum entropy that I can slip into a casual conversation. Denni☯ 23:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep valid subject, not original research (merely a summary of a certain school of thought in physics). Wile E. Heresiarch 07:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep valid and relevant subject to this site.----Newyorktimescrossword 19:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not strong in the field, but the article looks like it's got potential. -Colin Kimbrell 03:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems interesting and has historical valus as well as potential.  Ian13  19:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This article is relevent to the timeline of thermodynamics --Greytangerine 07:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This AfD seems to be based upon a misunderstanding as noted above by Jheald and Denni; I guess everyone should use {{underconstruction}, at least until they have established a reputation for writing good articles in a given area. In any event, PME is of course a thoroughly legitimate (and important!) topic in applied math. I'd be inclined to agree that the thermodynamic applications are sufficiently important to warrant a separate article. BTW, historically, Jayne introduced PME in the context of statistical mechanics, although nowadays that is probably best viewed as just one application, albeit a very important one. ---CH (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2005 (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.