Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Hierarchical thermodynamics

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Hierarchical thermodynamics


Wikipedia does not publish original research. While hierarchical is sometimes used to describe thermodynamics in the literature, this article is about the concepts of G P Gladyshev which have not been put into use by any other researchers, or covered in a review article. This draft is being edited enough to keep it immune from G13. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - My first inclination was to !vote Weak Delete, but review and analysis indicates that there are substantial reasons for deletion. This draft was Rejected by the nominator more than six months ago, but will not be deleted by G13 because the editor is continuing to edit it.  This appears to be both original research and probable self-publication.  That is, the author is probably the author of the papers that are cited (and is primarily editing with their focus being publication of their theory).  This draft is written in the style of a scientific paper, with an abstract first; that isn't a reason to delete, but it is an indication of self-publication.  The theory advanced here is probably considered a fringe theory by mainstream physicists.  (The nominator is correct that 'hierarchical' has a different meaning in mainstream thermodynamics than here.)  Also, while a textbook or an introductory article may reasonably cite the foundational work of Gibbs on thermodynamics, mainstream work has advanced so far beyond Gibbs as to suggest that the author is taking a different direction from the rest of the science (and that is a characteristic of fringe theories).  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR. That policy was written exactly for this sort of thing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as typical fringe physics, well below the threshold of wiki-notability for fringe science. Verbal tells include terminology used by certain authors is not welcomed by modern science and the new theory was in direct conflict with the fashionable theory ... of Dr. I. Prigogine. Basically "they laughed at Galileo!". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - But the threshold of fringe science, as referred to by User:XOR'easter, is the level at which the theory should have an article stating that it is a fringe theory, and such an article should be written by an editor with an education in mainstream science. Cold fusion is fringe.  This isn't even fringe because it doesn't have enough cranks supporting it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2019 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.