Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open statistical ensemble

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open statistical ensemble

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

It seems that the term was introduced by the author of the article in arXiv paper. The paper was not published in peer-reviewed journal, was not cited, and no evidence of the use of the OSE by anyone other than the author. See also article's talk page. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research that does not appear to have any coverage in reliable sources. Joe Roe (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur on all the points above, and see also my comments on the article's talk page from 2 years ago. Nanite (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources mentioning this or even a peer-reviewed primary source (even just that alone would fail GNG). Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious policy reasons beaten to death, but I will add that even for someone reasonably knowledgeable about the subject, the WP article (I am not going to dig the ArXiv source) is unclear or incorrect. The claimed difference with the Grand canonical ensemble is impossible to understand (the GCE does not "have a fictitious surface on its boundary"). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan: You are strongly confident that GCE has no fictitious surface on its boundary? Well, let's find out. You willing to publicly admit mistakes? Luksaz (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe:, @Nanite:, @Kingofaces43:, @Tigraan: As I understand it, you take care in this case on compliance with the principles of Wikipedia. Good. Then I invite you to be consistent and remove also an article Henry adsorption constant. It suffers from exactly the same "drawbacks" as this one. Be principles, please! Mr. Alexei Kopylov refused to do so. Luksaz (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Otherwise, if you want the article to be kept, please make an argument. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Inviting me to the reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you acknowledge that the above arguments are not sufficient to remove article. Besides, "It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline". Luksaz (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask you gentlemen, put on underpants or pull off the cross! Luksaz (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - My underpants are firmly in place! --Nanite (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, you're in a secure situation. Luksaz (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, no one wants to delete the article Henry adsorption constant. Then I will explain that this constant calculation, as well as the whole isotherm (based on statistical-mechanical derivation) was possible due to Open statistical ensemble. I have explained this to Mr Nanite 2 years ago. Thus, the removal of these articles only advisable in pair. Luksaz (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: I remind you that I and, I think, many others are waiting for justification of your statement that GCE has no fictitious surface on its boundary. Or it is already is not so obvious? ;) Luksaz (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2016 (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.