Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predictability

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 Keep. A merge to Chaos_Theory is advisable, but should be discussed separately. Ruslik (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Predictability

Seems like a dubious concept. I tried to find sources for it, but couldn't find anything that came close to this concept. Listing to generate discussion, I myself am so far neutral. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Unless I'm very much mistaken, "listing things to generate discussion" is hardly the purpose of AfD. :) -- Mvuijlst (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Deletion as a means of discussion is an interesting concept. Collect (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--A search in Google Books seems to verify the subject.--Jmundo (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, this is about predictability in social settings, or psychological settings. This article is about predictability in the physical sense, which is already covered by articles such as determinism.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when one is unsure about notability of an article, bringing it here is I think exactly the right course. Let people see and judge. DGG (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep but re-write to include the "Statistics 101" take on the predictability of a system in addition the current article's presentation: predictability as a concept of chaos theory. See the last paragraph of page 120 here to see a reference of this type. If you google for 'predictability "phase space"' you can get the general idea. —Noah 07:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a merge with chaos theory then.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Prediction. All the articles relating to prediction are quite poor and this one is no exception. By gathering all the strands in one place, maybe we can get a good article started. Note that this article's thermodynamic usage is compartively obscure and is not what the average reader is likely to be looking for - common words of this sort should go to a good general article or dab page. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Chaos Theory. This is a highly notable concept but would benefit from greater context. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chaos Theory. It seems like that is a good fit as well as compromise, not to mention makes this term more understandable in that context. MuZemike (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge lord is this article full of technobabble travb (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2008 (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.