Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mean information

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mean information

Mean information (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A strange personal essay. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Meandering nonsense. I know something about probability as a result of my work. Anthony Appleyard 16:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it's improved very soon.. I do realise Gregor Kjellström knows more about the subject than I do, but (especially in light of this article's sister page at Gaussian adaptation) this in its present form looks like one mathematician's pet project to rewrite the rules of information theory. While IMO this isn't in itself grounds for deletion, there's no evidence at present that anyone other than Kjellström takes it seriously. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
When other people start to take it seriously, and produce independent reports on the subject, we can have an article. This may be a good or even brilliant topic, but we have WP:OR and WP:COI. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The first sentence, that the article is meant to give "alternate views" raises POV converns. Additionally, it make no claim of notability that I can see. --EMS | Talk 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. When you read through an entire article and the only thing you get form it is, "Huh?" then you have problems. I think "pop-scientific" may translate into "original research," too. Realkyhick 01:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wouldn't it be appropriate to inform the author that his article has been nominated for deletion? While he appears to be taking a wikibreak here, he is embroiled in a discussion on the Swedish Wikipedia on Social Darwinism.[1]  --LambiamTalk 05:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Isn't User:Kjells's perspective already included in the article on Information entropy, when in its lead it says "Equivalently, the Shannon entropy is a measure of the average information content the recipient is missing when they do not know the value of the random variable" ? I would like to hear from User:Kjells as to why he was moved to create a separate article. Jheald 11:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Author is citing his own work on a non-notable topic, probably for self-promotion. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
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.