Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of statistical mechanics articles


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Statistical mechanics. Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

List of statistical mechanics articles

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This page is not about anything. Statistical mechanics is the article about statistical mechanics. (It's not even linked here!) Wikipedia is navigated by wikilinks and Summary style, not by a table-of-contents as this article seems to be. The article is not useful. An overview of statistical mechanics should be in Statistical mechanics. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an index, which navigates articles related to a field. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 15:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Renamed to match convention. Might not exactly be an index, though: it's not alphabetical like a lot of the rest. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (@Johnjbarton posted a comment and then deleted it again, check the history) Forgot that moving was part of AFD discussions, figured that if the AFD hadn't been going on I would have just up and moved it anyways, because it seemed to fit. I can move it back and just vote for "Move to Index of statistical mechanics articles" instead if people feel like it's necessary. I figured if it survives it would probably move there anyways, and if it's deleted it doesn't matter what the name is. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mrfoogles I deleted my comment because it was incorrect. I thought you had mistyped.
 * Your move is an improvement. I still think the article is pointless. We should put our energies into statistical mechanics. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy, Mathematics,  and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 21:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Also vote Keep. Large enough subject to have index for given the established pattern. Probably can be linked in the See Also of statistical mechanics: serves a minor purpose and doesn’t hurt anything. Does need to be alphabetized but not deleted. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to Statistical mechanics. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

*Keep Category:Statistical mechanics shows how many things should be here. If there was a column listing year of discovery and other stats, would it be more useful? Or a description of what each thing is?  D r e a m Focus  03:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't the index exactly redundant with Category:Statistical mechanics? If we add information to the index as you suggest aren't we creating a summary article exactly as I advocate we should in statistical mechanics? Johnjbarton (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Would all of those relevant entries fit in the other article?  D r e a m Focus  04:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are they related to "statistical mechanics"? Then yes. Otherwise they don't belong in the index either. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Moving the article in the middle of an AFD was also inappropriate; if someone wants to make it into an actual contextual list beyond just pointless bullet-pointed links, the original "List of" name was better. Still, they should be linked in the main article, Template:Statistical mechanics, Template:Statistical mechanics topics, and Category:Statistical mechanics as appropriate, but this serves no additional purpose so Delete or merge. Reywas92Talk 03:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The columns and information I added shows its a valid navigational list, it allowing more information than the category does. Far more useful for people to find what they are looking for.   D r e a m Focus  04:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Make it a section in the main article then. You added empty columns, and a basic list of links this short doesn't need a standalone page. Otherwise draftify. Reywas92Talk 13:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the change as a bad edit (explanation in edit summary). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violates WP:SELFREF, and important topics can be covered in the main topic article much better than a list of random links can provide.  Anyone who's interested can also make a sidebar for main topics if they want.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Also changing my position to Delete or Merge, given the important links are probably already in Template:Statistical mechanics, etc. It wasn't really a very good index with only 20 articles anyways. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral Right now the article is useless. That doesn't mean someone can't create something useful later on who is familiar with the topic.   D r e a m Focus  18:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.