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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Learning entropy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:N. No evidence that this is a mainstream concept. Only four citations are given that discuss the concept, all of which share a common author, and only one of which appears even to be to a peer-reviewed journal. Hundreds of thousands of papers appear each year, all of which present some new concept, method or argument; but very few are notable. Evidence of other people finding value in the concept and taking it up is required -- notability here for ideas essentially requires them to be mainstream, textbook material; or at the very least to be getting a shedload of citations. Not just a clutch of non-invited conference papers all by the same author. Furthermore, the concept even as presented here seems excessively vague and woolly. The material here fails to define or present it in any way that seems even remotely operationally usable -- from the article, one cannot even tell what the idea is; and it seems to have no relation at all to anything conventionally called entropy, to justify its name. This looks like fringe science and self-promotion, a poorly defined notion falling far short of the notability or widespread interest required for an article here, despite having found somebody at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation to agree to put it into mainspace. It should be removed. Jheald (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked in Web of Science for items referencing any work by the researcher who proposed this concept. I found (without being very careful) 16 items, of which 15 are by either the same researcher or his PhD supervisor. The 16th is http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/NEUREL.2006.341187 which I did not manage to access. Thus I agree that this concept is lacking notability at this moment. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Also WP:COI, the creator of the article being user:Ibukovsky who is clearly the main author of the references. D.Lazard (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks notability. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks notability, per nom. Ozob (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What parts of the article that can be parsed as English, and not just buzzwords strung together, seem nonsensical. E.g. somehow it's possible to recover the octane rating of gasoline (and not just a number correlated with it) from some parameterized description of an engine's behavior? This seems to be intended to impress and not to inform, and is therefore not encyclopedic, on top of the WP:OR issues already mentioned. As such it violates WP:NPOV: we need a neutral outsider perspective on whether there really is any value in this research, and we're not going to get it from looking at the research itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not even wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I agree on the notability issue and some of the other remarks above - a good lesson how Wikipedia works and good to learn its working well. Thanks for the work of Wikipedia reviewers. User:Ibukovsky, 8 October 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibukovsky (talk • contribs) 08:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Through a blazing act of my own ignorance, I didn't notice that the articles were all by the same authors when I accepted this at AfC. Delete per the issues that are well addressed above and WP:SNOW. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 21:46, 9 October 2013 (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.