Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical information

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. Sandstein 19:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Physical information[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Indiscriminate combination of various uses of the word "information" in physics, apparently written as an essay in 2005 and never fixed. PROD declined. Actual scientific literature will sometimes use the words "physical" and "information" in proximity, but as we've seen before, the bag-of-words approach to judging notability does not work for technical topics. XOR'easter (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per WP:TNT. The physical aspects of information theory have been studied, there are survey articles about this general topic (e.g. [1]), and we have appropriate articles on aspects of this general topic; see e.g. Black hole information paradox. Extreme physical information seems to be something else, a fuzzy topic in mathematics studied by a few fuzzy mathematicians following a book Physics from Fisher information by Frieden that MR1676801 strongly suggests as being fringe; I'm skeptical that it's notable but in any case it is better covered at its link than here. This article seems to be even less than either of those things: a grab-bag of topics linked only by the words "physical" and "information". I don't think it is salvageable, except maybe by throwing away all but the "see also" section and calling it a disambiguation page, but even then it probably wouldn't meet the standards for what should be a disambiguation page. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the "physics from Fisher information" business is very fuzzy, with a lot of assuming-the-desired-answer [2][3][4]. XOR'easter (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to be away for a while, probably longer than this AfD will run, tending to other things, but hopefully it will shake out adequately without me. XOR'easter (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2021 (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.