Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometrothermodynamics


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  09:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Geometrothermodynamics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This novel hypothesis does not seem to have gained any attention in the scientific community. The sources that directly mention this are either primary and unpublished (ie confined to preprint servers), and the others are just background material unrelated to the topic. Reyk YO! 11:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, I don't think it is true that this has not got any peer reviewed attention. There are many published papers in both mathematical and physics journals. Mostly, they bear Quevedo's name or his colleagues, but there are some that appear to be entirely independent:
 * Janke1, Johnston and Kenna, "Geometrothermodynamics of the Kehagias–Sfetsos black hole"
 * Han and Chen, "Thermodynamics, geometrothermodynamics and critical behavior of (2+1)-dimensional black holes"
 * In this book


 * Carroll, On The Emergence Theme Of Physics
 * the three-page section "Unified Legendre forms" appears to be entirely about geometrothermodynamics. Although the name does not appear until half-way down the first page, the paper ([26]) referenced at the beginning of the section as the subject of the section is one of Quevedo's papers.  I find this book,


 * Bellucci, Breaking of Supersymmetry and Ultraviolet Divergences in Extended
 * particularly telling. Although it can hardly be said to show WP:N (it only refers to a Quevedo paper ("Geometrothermodynamics of black holes") in a footnote without mentioning geometrothermodynamics or Quevedo by name, and then only to criticise the claim that Legendre transformations do not hold for black hole thermodynamics) it does show that the author thought the paper notable enough that he needed to respond to it. SpinningSpark 12:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Very well referenced to secondary academic sources. Definitely a notable topic that should stay here on Wiki. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep sufficient independent secondary sources to confirm. I must concede to not being able to understand most of their content, but nevertheless, looks more than justified in a keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2018 (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.