- 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The result was speedy keep, as withdrawn by the AfD nominator. -- Crowsnest (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Particle number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a WP:DICTIONARY. There's no potential for growth here IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteBeing unfamiliar with physics,and having read the article and its classification as "high importance" (classified as such in 2008, since which time no additional edits have taken place), my initial inclination was towards something like a weak keep. But... the nom's right, this is plain Wikipedia is not a dictionary stuff, and the fact that it is, in its current state, no more than a definition of a term, and has been so since 2008 (the last time it was meaningfully edited), is compelling. I'm pretty confident that a particle number is an important term in physics, but I'm almost as confident that it is just that: a term....I should probably abstain from this conversation until other editors who are familiar with physics come in and demonstrate conclusively why this should end as Keep. A swift smack to my forehead, please. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. The classification "high importance" is quite justified; it is indeed a fundamental parameter. While the article is short, it is not just a "dictionary definition" – this term is not found in dictionaries, and even if "particle number" had an entry in some dictionary, it would surely not tell us that the particle number is conjugate to the chemical potential, or how its meaning in a given thermodynamical process depends on the energy scale. This article is linked to by over one hundred other articles – largely by transclusion, but directly by several others, such as Thermodynamic equations, and it is not practical or reasonable to explain the meaning in sufficient detail in all articles that refer to and depend on this concept. Deleting this article will thus be grossly disruptive. --Lambiam 10:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — --Lambiam 12:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Particle number N, is one of the fundamental variables of thermodynamics/statistical mechanics, being conjugate to chemical potential. If this, is to be deleted we might as well delete volume. The fact that the article mentions this, already conclusively shows that there is more to say about the subject then just a dictionary definition.TR 13:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What the heck? Keep per Lambiam and TR. --A. di M. (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article can actually be expanded quite a lot, e.g. by including formulas for the cases of bosons and fermions, by giving the formula for the fluctuations in the particle number, by pointing out that for chemical potential zero it is undefined (example: photons). Also one can one can look at the case of bosons in detail and point out that below a critical temperature you have a macroscopic contribution to the particle number coming from the ground state alone, so this is then the critical temperature for Bose-Enstein condesation. So, that's quite a lot to write about... Count Iblis (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Maybe not grown very much but can be improved. This is an important term not a dictionary word or phrase. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Particle number is an important variable in both thermodynamics and the second quantization to get quantum field theory. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:54, 10 February 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.