Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energetics


 * 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 Convert to a disambiguation page.  Sandstein  14:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Energetics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article doesn't seem to make any sense. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep It's just imperfect and that's not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I did not explain very well. I understand the meaning of the word "energetics" but it does not seem to deserve a Wikipedia article, merely a Wiktionary entry. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Dabify to the various thermodynamics pages (e.g. Thermodynamics, Chemical thermodynamics etc), Bioenergetics and Energy flow (ecology) (as the area of study of ecological energetics). This is an old name for thermodynamics (e.g. Rankine's first book on thermodynamics was titled Outlines of the Science of Energetics), but it is still used in some introductory material today (e.g. A-Level chemistry still refers to the topic as energetics). The article starts with a history section that is basically a duplicate of the main Thermodynamics article (i.e. the work of Rankine and Boltzmann) Then suddenly veers off to discuss Howard T. Odum and his fringe views on the need for extra laws of thermodynamics which never gained mainstream acceptance. Can't really see enough for a standalone article here, since half the content is duplicating the history of thermodynamics and the other half is fringe content on the need for extra laws. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What on earth do you mean by “dabify”? Foxnpichu (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Convert to a disambiguation page. Glossary. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. That makes more sense. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Coming back to my comment I've realised it isn't the clearest thing in the world, so I thought I'd expand and unmuddle my thoughts a bit.
 * Energetics just means "The study of the properties, flow and transformation of energy". This is such a broad topic that the article has gotten confusing trying to cover multiple topics with not much connection. As the article states it covers everything from the Quantum level to the Cosmos.
 * As I mentioned this topic is the original name for thermodynamics, and it's still used to some extent in that manner, especially in chemistry and materials science (You'll find a lot of papers on the energetics of crystal structures, for example).
 * This word is used in biology to refer to the flow of energy through organisms and ecosystems, under the names Bioenergetics and ecological energetics.
 * There are a load of other topics that are potentially related (Industrial ecology? Thermoeconomics?) and I think trying to cover them all in one article is always going to be a disaster. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I would have said Speedy Keep, but following your reply to Andrew's comment, I'm going to say Transwiki to Wikitionary. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Having read the above useful comments I have changed my mind and now think Dabify would be best. Although also a very short definition could be put in Wiktionary. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Dabify to the various thermodynamics pages per IP editor above. Ambiguous term, too ambiguous to work as a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE but is a reasonable dab page.  // Timothy ::  talk  05:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is a somewhat obscure term. The page needs a lot of work. Perhaps a dabification will work. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2020 (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.