Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum thermodynamics


 * 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   redirect to Quantum statistical mechanics. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Quantum thermodynamics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page describes a theory of 'quantum thermodynamics', a subject I have never heard of before. The article is unclear and unconvincing to me, even though I am currently pursuing a PhD in quantum physics. There are no references to peer-reviewed literature. I have been unable to find any reputable sources on the subject. I therefore think that the page should be deleted from Wikipedia. Insurrectionist (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I've been a working physicist (statistical mechanics and condensed matter) for years and still learn of new physics theories from time to time; lack of personal knowledge isn't a reliable guide as to whether an article is notable or verifiable. Reference 7 is a Springer book and Springer is a reputable, reliable publisher. Looking at the external reference http://www.quantumthermodynamics.org/ shows dozens of articles by multiple authors, some in reliable peer-reviewed publications such as Reports on Mathematical Physics, Physical Review E, Modern Physics Letters A, etc.  Because of these, I think subject meets notability guidelines. The article could be improved to include multiple reliable sources. Mark viking (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The argument is fallacious. An article may refer to respectable sources but this does not make the article itself respectable. WP:Notability is not inherited either within Wikipedia or outside it. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC).
 * You are confused as to both what notability is and what it means when we say that it isn't inherited. You really should read the page that you are waving around.  It's nothing to do with the point at issue, and it's quite ironic that you're trying to make out that other people's arguments are the fallacious ones.  Not representing what the sources say is a matter of verifiability and original research, not notability.  Notability deals in whether the sources themselves exist, and their provenances and depths of coverage.  It is not affected by whether a particular article to hand happens to cite or properly represent such sources.  AFD is not Cleanup.  Uncle G (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Snow Close  Entire books have been written on this subject link and major universities are offering courses dedicated to the study of Quantum Thermodynamics link. I could provide more links and countless references from reliable sources, but I don't think there is a need here.  The references in the article could use some work, but there is no need for an AfD discussion on this.  WP:BEFORE exists for a reason.  This article should be kept and this discussion closed per WP:SNOW MisterUnit (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  18:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * REDIRECT Strong Keep and Snow Close I have a cousin enrolled in a course. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉  20:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Riley Huntley has not in fact opined in this discussion. Please revise your rationale so that it is not erroneous on its face.  Moreover:  Your cousin's course may be History of Art in Germany for all that the world can know.  Indeed, the world has no way of knowing that you even have a cousin.  Please concentrate upon the existences, provenances, and depths of possible sourcing for an article, as that is the requirement of Deletion policy in an AFD discussion.  Uncle G (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ERROR CORRECTED Keep and Close comment still must stand until I can see proof that this course does not exist. I find the argument that these courses have the same name but are teaching something different to be quite fantastic. It's a wild thing to say without providing proof. Sorry. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * After a lengthy discussion with someone who knows, (my dear cousin), I am changing my opinion to REDIRECT, as that is what is proper. I am a layman (and as a fallable human being) in this field myself, but as you can see with enough research, I eventually come around. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 *  Delete and Redirect to quantum statistical mechanics. Poorly-written WP:POV fork of quantum statistical mechanics designed as a WP:Coatrack on which to hang an arXiv paper and a set of course lectures notes on a non-mainstream treatment of quantum statistical mechanics. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep and rewrite: this article was originally written - and has received only limited edits since then - by User:Sadi Carnot, who is now banned indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts to POV-push his own pet fringe theories. As a result, while the subject of the article is clearly notable as indicated by the !votes above, the text of the article is untrustworthy, and needs revision by an expert in the subject matter.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The point that Xxanthippe is trying to make, albeit so badly, is that if one reads beyond the first two words of the source titles into their actual content, as one really should as a Wikipedia editor in an AFD discussion, there's little explicitly cited so far in this discussion that shows that there's a distinct legitimate subject by this name, and rather a lot of vague handwaving and proof by unsupported bare assertion ("I have a cousin.") in place of such reading. Reading just the source titles gets one nowhere. Anyone with any experience of reading knows that, even in the realms of academe, titles are chosen more to be catchy than to be strictly and formally descriptive.  It's an absurd notion to be basing an argument on the titles of courses and books, without any regards as to their contents and substance; and it's downright silly for encyclopaedists &mdash; for whom reading is one of the three basic necessary skills &mdash; to not read sources. Reading chapter 1 of the book pointed to by MisterUnit above, for example, turns up the fact that nowhere is a field of quantum thermodynamics actually mentioned by the authors.  That only comes in the preface by Günter Mahler on page v.  Even then, M. Mahler describes it as a "popular keyword" that, as the mode du jour, is attracting people. Uncle G (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The arguments advanced by the keepers are spurious. The article appears to be a WP:Coatrack on which to hang an arXiv paper and a set of course lectures notes. Not every arXiv paper or lecture course is notable; we need many hundreds if not thousands of citations to justify an article. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment. My apologies to Uncle G for the poor quality of my editing; I will try to do better in future. The issue here is that the article is a wolf (non-mainsteam) in sheep's (mainstream) clothing. The first section of the article is relatively unexceptional, the second is definitely outside the mainstream and should not be implied to be in it. Some editors have not realized that the emperor has no clothes (I hope this mixture of metaphors is not too much for Uncle G to stomach). Somebody's cousin may well have taken a course with the same name but it is unlikely to have had the same subject matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC).
 * You raise an interesting point. The article may pass notability and reliable source criteria, but quantum thermodynamics could still be a controversial, contested theory. Given that there are multiple peer reviewed publications about the subject in mainstream physics publications, I don't think one could claim it is patent nonsense or fringe science. But any reliable sources contesting the validity or applicability of the theory would be a valuable addition to the article.  Mark viking (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree that the article is a poorly written POV mess, but that is not a reason to delete the article (WP:RUBBISH). The question you need to answer at AfD is whether or not the subject is notable, and this subject most certainly is.  If there are POV problems, or other quality problems with the article then the appropriate cleanup templates should be placed on the article and it should be fixed, but not deleted.


 * Clearly the "cousin argument" is a bit ridiculous, so you should probably give that one a rest. Uncle G's idea that major universities give their courses titles that have nothing to do with the subject matter of the course is equally ridiculous, so let's ignore that as well.  Uncle G's statement about the book is just plain not true.  The book is about thermodynamic relationships and behavior at a quantum level - i.e. quantum thermodynamics.  Just because the authors didn't write "This is a book about quantum thermodynamics" in chapter 1, does not mean that the authors think that the concept does not exist.


 * The book and the course that I pointed to above are just the first Google Books/Web hits that I came across out of thousands, so you shouldn't be too hung up on those either. Seriously, do some WP:before and look around for sources before you !vote.  Even though the article as it is written totally misses the point, you'll find sources relating to quantum thermodynamics all over the place.  The article needs to be reduced to a stub and re-written, not deleted. MisterUnit (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to quantum statistical mechanics, unless some clear and sourceable rationale can be given for distinguishing the two things. Anything notable and sourceable can be merged.  Don't delete; the "delete and redirect" outcome is for cases where the availability of the content, even in the history, is deemed harmful (primarily defamation, copyvio, and other material that could expose the Foundation to legal risk). --Trovatore (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If that's the case then just Redirect. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC).


 * Redirect per Trovatore. The material at Quantum statistical mechanics is mainstream and foundational -- see eg the book by Tolman in print since the 1930s. This new material at Quantum thermodynamics ... isn't.  Sure, there's scope for improvement at Quantum statistical mechanics -- for example more chat about why this might be the natural transposition into the quantum world of the understanding and arguments developed in classical statistical mechanics (at the moment the qsm article rather baldly just sets out formulas).  There's also long-running discussion, primarily carried on by philosophers, as to what extent it is appropriate to say statistical mechanics "explains" thermodynamics (in fact if you look up either term in say the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, that's what the philosophers of science seem most keen to discuss); our article Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics (which could do itself with quite a lot of attention) probably should be extended to reflect more of that discussion.  But the new material in this new article appears not particularly mainstream and more than somewhat flaky.  If it's merged to places, I recommend handling it with some considerable care: care to separate what's mainstream and what's not, care about WP:UNDUE, and care not to reflect a possibly garbled account of one lab's position as the story of quantum thermodynamics.  In short: at a quick first glance, not at all comfortable with the material in this new article.  Jheald (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't generally edit on Wikipedia, so this AfD process is fascinating for me so far. I'd like to use this comment to clarify my reasons for marking this article for deletion. It was clear to me when reading the article that this was the work of a crackpot, or crackpots (I don't know of a polite name for this kind of person). The references provided are either disreputable or completely irrelevant to the text on the page. The fact that a Springer book exists with a title of Quantum Thermodynamics (ISBN=3540229116) does not entitle a Wikipedia page of the same name. Although I have not read the book, I imagine the contents would be suitable for the Wikipedia page on Quantum Statistical Mechanics, so I don't think there's any purpose in reworking this page to discuss legitimate physics. I think that the Quantum Thermodynamics page should just redirect to Quantum Statistical Mechanics. Insurrectionist (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have completely rewritten the article to address some of the concerns above. Most of the prose has been gutted and replaced with a more neutral point of view. I added other approaches to quantum thermodynamics that I knew of and added more reliable references throughout. The article is more stub-like, but hopefully what is there is better founded. Note this is my first Wikipedia article rewrite, so be bold in improving my work or suggesting changes. Mark viking (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to quantum statistical mechanics.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - just because it could attract crackpots, does not mean that it is in fact, a coatrack for them. This is a legitimate name of an article.  Therefore, it would be O.K., otherwise, merge and redirect to quantum statistical mechanics. Keeping a redirect will do no harm. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to quantum statistical mechanics. I agree with Jheald that when merged it should be noted that it is not the mainstream opinion. Paulthomas2 (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Request to close, per consensus There are no votes to delete. This article should be "Keep", or "Keep and redirect" Redirected, according to consensus. I fail to see how the consensus could be any clearer. This article should be closed.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The consensus appears to be to Redirect. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Yes, most definitely REDIRECT. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Before closing this discussion, perhaps other editors could look at the rewritten article and comment? I tried to create a more neutral point of view, suggest alternative approaches to quantum thermodynamics and cite assertions with more reliable sources. If the consensus is still redirect, so be it, but there has been no comment on the rewrite so far and any feedback would be useful to me. Thanks. Mark viking (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your rewrite is a great improvement on the original. Far better than, for example, the scandalous Heim theory which is junk science from beginning to end but which is defended by a cabal of fringe activists. The trouble with the present article in its new state is that it is still not clear, or demonstrated by sources, that quantum thermodynamics is significantly different to quantum statistical mechanics, which has a well-established article, and deserves a separate article because of this. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC).
 * You might be able to incorporate some of your good work into quantum statistical mechanics, although not the Keenan model. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC).


 * Redirect - the "History" and "Coupling to a macroscopic system" sections are firmly within the domain of quantum statistical mechanics. The "Keenan model" section is not sufficiently notable for wikipedia. --Steve (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect - At least from a physicist's point of view, there is no such thing as "quantum thermodynamics". The topic that would be called that already has a name - it's statistical mechanics.  Having an article entitled  "quantum thermodynamics" is like having an article titled "quantum classical mechanics".   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 15:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect for all the reasons listed above. If anything valid can be salvaged from this page, it can certainly be included on the Quantum statistical mechanics page. PianoDan (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2012 (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.