Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermodynamic evolution

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 of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thermodynamic evolution

Original research, self promotion of pet theory/book JPotter 01:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Thermodynamic+evolution%22&btnG=Google+Search. 585 hits in google, most nothing to do with the article. --JPotter 02:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article looks very impressive with multi-editors contributing. Can you be more specific? -- JJay 02:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Originally that's what I thought as well, but actually the only major editor is Wavesmikey. It appears the subject is his own original research promoting a book of his. I cannot find much reference to anything he's talking about in his references either. And the googling the idea seems to come up short as well, as most of the hits are either to Wikipedia or to ideas that have nothing to do with the article. He's going around to various evolution article placing his own website www.humanthermodynamics.com http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Talk:Evolution&curid=9237&diff=31410896&oldid=31409956, http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Human_evolution&diff=31062374&oldid=30416859 Seems like Original Research to me. I could be wrong and I'll withdraw my nomination and apologize to the author if compelling reasoning is given why its not OR. --JPotter 02:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going to hold off on voting for the time being. -- JJay 02:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments from Flying Jazz and Gazpacho. -- JJay 20:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for major rewrite. This is a domain-standard term, but not for what the article describes. It appears to mean the development of a system under thermodynamic laws. Gazpacho 02:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment then perhaps it should be a delete, because rewriting something which is a misuse of the title involves more or less blanking then writing a new article anway - the article can be created anew if someone has sources and information for the correct useage. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not entirely sure that the term isn't used as the page claims, or I would vote to delete. Gazpacho
    - Just see how many of the uses of thermodynamic evolution you can replace with evolution of a thermodynamic state. Of the top google hits, we're the only ones I see who are using the term in the Darwinian evolution sense rather than the time evolution of an equation sense. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I see links and references; They appear to mostly go where they say and be about the subject. This looks to me like a content dispute related to evolution. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bizarrely written, appears to be POVish diatribe loosely related to the evolution debate and entropy. Might be rewritten as a very different article per Gazpacho, but current content is not useful. Bikeable 05:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of this article reads like pseudo-scientific garbage. Best to delete, because a good rewrite would have to start from scratch anyway. --Pierremenard
Delete. Better packaged than most nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless. Durova 09:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While much of the information is accurate and the perspectives outlined are expressed fairly well, this still qualifies as original research as the term "thermodynamic evolution" isn't used by any of the sources cited nor is it a concept that is commonly referenced in literature. Rather this is a clever amalgamation of sources who talk about "evolution" in the context of thermodynamics. Most of the material is covered in some form on other pages in Wikipedia including Second law of thermodynamics, chemical evolution, etc. --ScienceApologist 15:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, ScienceApologist et al. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, Wavesmikey, but it's a mess. Jheald 17:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics 2 might be of interest. Fg2 01:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. --DrTorstenHenning 14:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We Need Something: While I agree that if this is based totally on original research it should be deleted, I agree with Gazpacho that this is an interesting topic and should be rewritten. Many anomolies exist between evolution and the 2nd law and this should perhaps be the focus? User:Lagrangian

Suggestion: go help User:Sholto Maud write reasonable articles about ecology, and in particular, concepts like emergy and etc. that deal with these types of topics. However, the goal is to write articles on existing, notable topics, and not write lessons/essays or perform original research.linas 21:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as original research. linas 21:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Karol 00:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research Brimba 04:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep and merge. Some of this article appears to be OR, some of it appears to be non-OR. There appears a problem in the conveyance of information about the history of physical biology, and physical ecology. Such a topic seems to attract those from physics who are not familiar with the basic works. Likewise it attracts those from ecology and biology who may not have a foundation in mathematical physics, and so cannot formulate proofs in the language of mathematical logic. As for the debate about the title, I'd like to draw your attention to the maximum power theorem entry because it has vertually no references at all (except for the one I put there, is it not therefore OR?), and yet seems to have been unchallenged, even though the use of the term 'theorem' in the title is in conflict with the definition of the word 'theorem' given in the theorem article. As I understand it, the maximum power "theorem" is defined as the "law" of thermodynamic evolution - so what is a thermodynamic law, and what is a electronic theorem? (Note also that Clausius identified the entropy "law" as a theorem).

Some historical context - The systems ecologist H.T.Odum tried to use the ideas of both Boltzmann and Lotka (referred to in the article) in his approach to ecological systems. Odum referred to a concept of biological "thrust" - such as the "thrust" of a tree as it grows and raises mass up from the soil, into the air against the force of gravity, and transforms it into an apple which then could drop due to the force of gravity and hit Newton on the head. Is this "energy-transformative thrust" analysable in terms of thermodynamics, and can we expand this beyond the consideration of the life cycle of just one plant (for instance), and extend it to the succesive genearational adjustments over the 'evolution' of a species of plant? Does evolution attempt to optimize biological and ecological thrust?
In the context of thermodynamics there is a massive issue, and it is with the notion of "neg entropy". This concept, was discussed by Schrodinger in the context of the physical definition of "life", seems to be equivalent to the concept of "exergy", and appears to be in contradiction with the first law of the conservation of energy, I.e. exergy algorithms are, in some instances, non-conservative. Consider a pregnant woman. S.E.Jorgensen in 2000 suggested that a preganant mother living in a big isolated room with sufficient food until she gives birth to her child will increase in exergy because the growing child has more exergy than the food she consumes.
How do we get around this issue, or introduce it here in WIkipedia?
My suggestion is that we consider merging the thermodynamic evolution article with the article on maximum power. However this does not resolve the issue of whether maximum power might be simultaneously considered both the 4th law of thermodyanmics and the thermodynamic law of evolution.
My conditions are that such an article be uncompromisingly rigorous, with deletion of any original reserach - lets stick to the history of the development.
but that those who object to this article commit to doing research in the area so that they can help keep the treatment rigorous, and so that they can contribute to the formal expression of these matters in terms of mathematical logic. Sholto Maud 10:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for diambig and major rewrite. Many use system boundaries in conceptual ways when discussing thermodynamics, but slamming the big bang and the biome together just aint right. "Thermodynamic evolution" should lead to a disamb because the term is ambiguous and doesn't answer the question "evolution of what?" Most of this article should be titled "thermodynamics of biological evolution" and have a major rewrite to add specificity. The last bit should be titled "thermodynamics of the evolution of the universe" and would ideally be fleshed out more completely. These topics are mentioned elsewhere, but individual articles dedicated to them would be a good place for more detailed information for the thermodynamically inclined. Flying Jazz 16:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ScienceApologist. The common usage of this term is to describe the evolution of a thermodynamic state, not the thermodynamics of evolution. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.