Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics


 * 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. Or at worst no consensus, but more recent comments trend towards keep.  Sandstein  08:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a shred of philosophy. The article sits here as a poor summary of the basic laws of thermo and Maxwell's demon. Started in these old exciting times (2003) when the concept of Wikipedia was vague. Original writer has long since gone, so I cannot ask for fixes. Nobody else cares. I think it is time for the demon to consume it. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  02:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  02:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Not a shred of a reason to delete. We don't delete articles because they were written in 2003.  We don't delete articles because their original authors have moved on – that will happen to every article in time.  We don't delete articles because they are poor – see WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOTCLEANUP.  And we don't delete articles to feed demons.  For an example of an external article of a similar kind in a reputable work, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  Andrew D. (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The reasojn is stated clear; you saw it and even mocked it: the article has not a word on its subject. I mentioned the original authors because I could have asked them per WP:AGF to fix the article, -- but could not. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't speedy keep As of right now I'm neutral on what should be done with the article, but Andrew should be given the boot if he makes any more counter-policy "speedy keep" !votes, and he should be blocked if he doesn't retract the above unprovoked personal attack on the nom: we can disagree about things until the cows come home, but when you start calling people trolls (and demons!) solely because you disagree with them, that's a sign that you perhaps need to take a break. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It was the nom who first raised the "feeding the demon" idiom, not Andrew. SpinningSpark 22:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The nom appeared to be using "consumption by a demon" as a metaphor for deletion; Andrew referred to the nominator as a demon, and the page he linked made it clear he was implying the nominator was a troll. I see these as substantively different. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I couldn't find a suitable source to establish notability of this topic (as opposed to the more inclusive "Philosophy of physics"). There are several forks of Wikipedia's article online. I also found this source, which seems to be part of a university curriculum. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC
 * Delete per (i)Davidson. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason to delete. The article has relevant and respected sourcing. WP:NOTCLEANUP. The article passes WP:GNG. "Original writer has long since gone?" This is mot a valid reason to delete. WP:NOTPAPER so there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content.  Lubbad85   (☎) 14:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please explain how the sources cover the subject, namely ''Philosophy of..." Staszek Lem (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There is certainly a topic here, particularly the area of philosophy of statistical mechanics, on which one can find eg this by Lawrence Sklar (2001/2015) at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or this introductory bibliography (2010) by David Wallace (Oxford/USC), or these "Philosophy of Thermal Physics" course-notes with reading list (2000) by Jeremy Butterfield.
 * Key questions are:
 * What is the nature of the probabilities in statistical mechanics?
 * Is it correct that classical thermodynamics can be "reduced" to the consequences of statistical mechanics, or is there more?
 * To what extent can it be said that statistical mechanics "explains" the second law of thermodynamics and the directionality of time -- or does this depend on important assumptions and approximations?
 * However, the present article appears neither to raise nor address any of these questions, giving just a capsule summary of the laws of thermodynamics, which really could be anywhere & really has very little connection to the specific topic. I would therefore say keep to preserve the history and the talk-page; but really, IMO, the entire content ought to be scrapped, and the article started again, focussed on actually, what are the philosophical (epistemological, ontological) questions here.  Jheald (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One more ref: This background material for a course by Gábor Hofer-Szabó on "Philosophy of Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics" gives a useful overview of historical technical development, through which some of the philosophical issues peek through (and I like the advice to try to identify the "point of intractability").  Jheald (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, his more fleshed-out notes for a course, which conclude with this interesting set question: "Where does coarse-graining come from? Limited capacity of the observer? Does equilibrium make sense to creatures with unlimited capacity? Does coarse-graining have any physical basis or it is plainly arbitrary?" -- what is it we seek from a scientific theory? Jheald (talk)
 * Note: This discussion has been highlighted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Jheald (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 *  Delete: Non-notable and does not provide any useful encyclopedic information that is not already outside the article.--MaoGo (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Declaring something non-notable does not make it so ipse dixit. Several contributors have offered sources.  If you wish to argue for nn ex post facto then it is incumbent on you to give a rationale why those sources do not meet GNG. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 22:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There's definitely a notable topic here, as the references provided above demonstrate. The only question is whether it is easier to fix up the current page or go the WP:TNT route. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but stubbify. There's a substantial and valid topic here - that completely fails to be addressed by current article contents. Looks as if it needs to be rewritten from scratch; we might as well replace contents with a one paragraph precis until that happens. I find 's outlines of what could be done here convincing. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment OK, I went ahead and stubbified the page, while adding one of 's questions above. Here is the previous revision, for reference's sake. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important topic as per Elmidae. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC).
 * Keep. Clearly a notable topic, and now the irrelevant material has been removed, we have a servicable stub. There are numerous sources that can be used to build a good article from this. Book sources include;
 * Martinas et al., Thermodynamics: History And Philosophy - Facts, Trends, Debates
 * Hoyer, Thermodynamics and Philosophy: Ludwig Boltzmann,
 * Sklar, Physics and Chance: Philosophical Issues in the Foundations of Statistical Mechanics,
 * Ernst & Hüttemann, Time, Chance, and Reduction: Philosophical Aspects of Statistical Mechanics,
 * <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 22:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Rename something to the effect of "Philosophy of Thermodynamics"; a more inclusive and well-known name. That said, with such title the current stub has potential for expansion and improvement. -John M Wolfson (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this rename. Statistical physics is the essential feature that links phenomenological thermodynamics to more fundamental mechanics. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC).
 * How about a move to "Philosophy of statistical physics" or "Philosophy of thermodynamics and statistical physics" (although the latter is a bit long)? The current name seems overly obscure and clunky, IMO, although I'd like to generate more consensus on the name if felt appropriate. John M Wolfson (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, I actually considered proposing a rename to "Philosophy of thermodynamics and statistical physics". It is longer, in terms of character count, but it's easier to digest. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The clutter is gone, and with it the concerns about possible Original Research. We have by now more than enough references to establish notability. No policy-based argument for deletion stands. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there was very much in the article that was genuinely OR, just uncited which is not the same thing. An expanded article would doubtless have to have some discussion of the laws of thermodynamics, but I agree with its removal for the present – there is no point to it if it is not in the context of imparting philosophical ideas, which is what the article is supposed to be about. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a difference between what "Original Research" often means and "miscellaneous pile of probably roughly correct, uncited material that meanders about the stated topic without really contacting it". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Jheald found a college course and other evidence this is a real thing and gets coverage.  D r e a m Focus  18:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons cited in the last four keeps. This is a content dispute, not a reason to WP:AFD.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.