Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose–Einstein condensation: a network theory approach
- 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bose–Einstein condensation: a network theory approach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete I can't see anything in this except a textbook case of WP:OR. I mean, it's in the title. From what I can tell, this article is mostly based on G. Bianconi and A.-L. Barabási (2001). "Bose–Einstein Condensation in Complex Networks". Physical Review Letters. 86 (24): 5632–5635. arXiv:cond-mat/0011224. Bibcode:2001PhRvL..86.5632B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.5632. It's a highly-cited article, but not one that is so influential as to deserve its own Wikipedia article. Whatever there is to save can be merged in Bose–Einstein condensation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Come on, what REALLY is the problem with this article? It's not original research, it contains thirteen references which have expanded and clarified on the original article (Bianconi & Barabási). The tag for missing citations should be removed. What is it about the title that implies OR? Many editors, including myself, have contributed. The article is highly cited - how can an article be highly cited, yet not influential? It definitely should NOT be merged with Bose–Einstein condensate, since it is not describing the physics of a physical Bose gas, and anyone proposing such a merger demonstrates a lack of understanding of the article. This article is not about physics, it is about network theory, and the WP:Physics tag should be removed. A link from the BEC page should be sufficient. Let this be decided by those who have some understanding of the article. The mathematics are identical, and the deeper principles connecting the two are part of the subject of the article. Perhaps the choice of the title of the article is unfortunate since it implies such a connection, but this is no reason to discard it out of hand. This is the second attempt to delete this article, the first one failed, this one should also.
- I note that you think the title might be problematic and that very few of the references are about "a network theory approach to Bose-Einstein condesnates". I am wondering what you think the article should be called? Not every referenced useful bit of text belongs in an encyclopedia. What in your opinion is the subject of this article and why is it notable? --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out the introduction to the article, particularly the fourth and fifth paragraphs - I think this a fairly good answer to your question. I'm not sure what the best title would be - something that made it clear that the underlying mechanism of Bose-Einstein condensation is being applied to situations other than a physical Bose gas, it this case, to network theory. Perhaps "Application of Bose-Einstein condensation concepts to network theory", but that seems a little wordy. The way I came to be interested in this is via econophysics - the application of the mathematical apparatus developed for physics, particularly statistical physics, in the analysis of economic problems. This should not be construed as a confusion of physics and economics - the analogies and their limitations should be carefully delineated. The situation is similar to the connection between information entropy and thermodynamic entropy, but in this case, the connection is much tighter. PAR (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that you think the title might be problematic and that very few of the references are about "a network theory approach to Bose-Einstein condesnates". I am wondering what you think the article should be called? Not every referenced useful bit of text belongs in an encyclopedia. What in your opinion is the subject of this article and why is it notable? --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to "Bose–Einstein condensation (network theory)" as suggested. Sufficiently astray from WP:OR to be kept. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and agree move to a less problematic title if one can be agreed. I've no particular opinion, but perhaps the existing suggestions might be reversed, e.g. "Network theory (Bose-Einstein condensation mechanism)" etc. Keep decision does not depend on choice of title. - Pointillist (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2011 (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.