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.
It seems that the term was introduced by the author of the article in arXiv paper. The paper was not published in peer-reviewed journal, was not cited, and no evidence of the use of the OSE by anyone other than the author. See also
article's talk page.
Alexei Kopylov (
talk)
09:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - obvious policy reasons beaten to death, but I will add that even for someone reasonably knowledgeable about the subject, the WP article (I am not going to dig the ArXiv source) is unclear or incorrect. The claimed difference with the
Grand canonical ensemble is impossible to understand (the GCE does not "have a fictitious surface on its boundary").
TigraanClick here to contact me17:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Tigraan: You are strongly confident that GCE has no fictitious surface on its boundary? Well, let's find out. You willing to publicly admit mistakes?
Luksaz (
talk)
11:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Joe Roe:, @
Nanite:, @
Kingofaces43:, @
Tigraan: As I understand it, you take care in this case on compliance with the principles of Wikipedia. Good. Then I invite you to be consistent and remove also an article
Henry adsorption constant. It suffers from exactly the same "drawbacks" as this one. Be principles, please! Mr. Alexei Kopylov refused to do so.
Luksaz (
talk)
11:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)reply
As I understand it, no one wants to delete the article
Henry adsorption constant. Then I will explain that this constant calculation, as well as the whole isotherm (based on statistical-mechanical derivation) was possible due to Open statistical ensemble. I have explained this to Mr Nanite 2 years ago. Thus, the removal of these articles only advisable in pair.
Luksaz (
talk)
10:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Tigraan: I remind you that I and, I think, many others are waiting for justification of your statement that GCE has no fictitious surface on its boundary. Or it is already is not so obvious? ;)
Luksaz (
talk)
10:24, 10 December 2016 (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.