Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy transfer


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Energy transfer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I wish to propose deletion of the article with title Energy transfer.

The article seems to have been transmogrified from an original article about ballistics. There were some imperfections in that original article, but they do not constitute a reason for what has happened to it. It has been transmogrified into a muddled unsourced article that vacillates between being about thermodynamic systems and physical systems, which are distinctly different topics. It has no sources, and, on the face of it, looks like an own-research meditation by someone who did not investigate potential reliable sources for it. Its content is a muddled or half-baked version of parts of other articles, such as, for example, Heat and Thermodynamic process. I think it does not deserve a place as such in Wikipedia. If someone with an interest in ballistics wished to rescue it as an article on ballistics, I would not oppose that.

At present it is mainly a playground for the occasional vandal. So I propose that it should be deleted.Chjoaygame (talk|TB|) 11:01 am, Today (UTC+ (reposted on behalf of OP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Essay or Original Research. Unsourced since it s creation in 2005. At one time there was a Merge proposal that failed to create resonance. Talk on the article talk page tends to reveal a consensus that the article is probably scientifically inaccurate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't propose to rescue this article myself (at least not right now), and I have no wish to defend it in its current state, but it is most definitely a notable subject. There are many books and papers on the subject, and it is an especially hot topic in the field of microscale energy transfer, see for instance, the discussion of, the previously unsuspected, energy transfer by inductive resonance in Energy Transfer in Macromolecules.  It is also a distinct topic from energy transformation (although obviously connected with it) and it is most definitely more than an article on ballistics as claimed by the nominator. SpinningSpark 10:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to comment. I, the nominator, didn't claim it is now an article on ballistics; I claimed it is a transmogrification of an article that was originally on ballistics. The commenter Editor Spinningspark may well be right that an article is needed about microscale energy transfer, but there is no hint of that in the present article. That fits with my claim that the present article was not based on a fair investigation of sources. If Editor Spinningspark wishes to write an article along the lines that he suggests, I say more strength to his arm. But let's clear the decks for him by deleting the present half-baked effort.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This one is so awful that it should be deleted. Energy transfer has a well-defined meaning in photophysics, but the article talks about everything else.  Perhaps it could be redirected to Förster coupling, although that article is pretty awful, too. 134.224.220.1 (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - current unsourced article is pure OR.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep . Energy transfer is an important topic in many areas of physics as well as in technology. Just because the current version of the article is not good does not mean the article should not exist. If Conservation of energy were in reasonable shape rather than its current hodgepodge of history and specific topics, I would suggest a redirect to that article. However there is no discussion of energy transfer in "Conservation of energy"! We have a reasonable article on Energy transformation which has no references at all, showing the current state of many physics articles. Many were written in the era when topics covered in textbooks were considered not to need references. So not sourced is not a reason to delete the article either. See WP:ARTN: ...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Response to the foregoing. That transfer of energy is considered "in many areas of physics" does not make it a topic in its own right. Those areas of physics are diverse and have different approaches. The diversity of those areas of physics is a reason that the phrase "energy transfer" is not a unified topic. It is artificial to tie the various approaches together in a single article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, to provide an article for every phrase that one may encounter.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Energy itself is considered in many areas of physics, and has an article, as does force, and momentum. Those articles have sections on the various approaches without seeming to be artificially tied together. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The foregoing response misses the point. Energy is a primary concept that unifies otherwise diverse areas of physics. 'Energy transfer' is a phrase that is derived from it, and different in the diverse areas. It is artificial to try to make it a topic of its own. The apparently unconscious conceptual mixture of the article's present version testifies to this. The poor quality and lack of constructive maintenance of the present article also testify. The reactively and newly added 'further reading' item is a bureaucratic concoction, not a useful addition to an encyclopedia topic. The article should be deleted unless some editors appear who are willing and able to fix it, and maintain it. I think it is probably beyond fixing, because it is not a natural topic. To allow for editors who may appear in future and wish somehow to create a new article with same title but better reason for existence, let's clear a space for them to start from.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are overstating your case. If energy transfer is such an artificial topic how come I can find a book with that title, and presumably entirely on that topic?  Or this one Advances in Energy Transfer Processes?  Admittedly, that last is concerned only with atomic and molecular processes, but nonetheless is treating the subject of energy transfers of all kinds as a unified whole.  The bottom line as far as Wikipedia policy goes is that an article with this title could be written from reliable sources, thus an article with this title should exist. SpinningSpark 11:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are right that I have overstated the case. I still think the present article should be rescued or deleted, not left as a little vandalism node, otherwise unmaintained. When some keen editors come along to write a decent article on the topic, they will then have a clean slate to start from.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is basic thermodynamics, and, as noted above, is covered in various pages. It is covered already at the various places it belongs.  DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thermodynamics is not the only area of physical science dealing with energy transfer. I learned more about energy transfer in courses in Classical Mechanics, Chemical Physics, and Stellar Structure than I did in either undergraduate or graduate Thermodynamics courses. In this era of STEM education the National Academy of Sciences published A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas in 2012. Of the four core ideas in the physical sciences, the third is listed as


 * It would be good to have a coherent Wikipedia article for this concept as teachers and students come looking for it. The outline given in the Framework mentioned above is where I plan to start. I don't think we need to erase a decade worth of editing history by deleting the article first. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * right, it is of course broader than thermodynamics, or at least is a part of thermodynamics that is directly relevant to many other topics. But we already have a reasonably good article on the general topic, and I should have thought of it at once: Energy. We can just redirect to it.  DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If Editor StarryGrandma intends to write a well conceived article on the topic, I say more strength to her arm. She says she thinks we don't "need to erase a decade worth of editing history by deleting the article first". A look at the editing history will persuade editors that the word "worth" does not describe it well. The article started as an unreferenced but reasonable account of a topic in ballistics, not primarily physics-oriented. It was later taken over by an editor who was physics-oriented, but was not clear about the difference between physical systems in general and thermodynamic systems, still with no references, and with obliteration of the ballistics topic. Much of the editing has been vandalism and its undoing.


 * I think if Editor StarryGrandma should go ahead to write a new and well conceived article, we would be doing her, and other editors, and all readers, a great favor by clearing the old detritus from their path, by deleting the present messy incumbent. Left there, it would be a potentially misleading distraction, not a help.


 * It is not obvious to me that there is a substantial difference, beyond the name, between conservation of energy and energy transfer. They are in substance, it seems to me, the same. The quoted syllabus lists them as one core idea, not separately. As a distinct topic in its own right, I think it a formidably difficult task to conceive in general. I repeat, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, to list the usages of a word.


 * As for the comment "it is of course broader than thermodynamics, or at least is a part of thermodynamics that is directly relevant to many other topics", I think energy transfer comes up in very many other diverse areas, far beyond the scope of thermodynamics.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and then recreate as a redirect to Energy. I find these arguments compelling. I've changed the energy transfer section heading in Energy to Energy transfer and removed the "main article" reference to the article Energy transfer. I will rewrite that section somewhat. (Convection, where mass moves, is an important means of energy transfer.) If at some time it grows beyond the size of an article section, it can become a subarticle. It's position in the Energy article should prevent random additions of topics. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. This can be probably transformed into a disambig. page, something similar to Charge-transfer. My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2015 (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.