Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social thermodynamics theory

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 delete. Sandstein 08:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social thermodynamics theory[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a WP:COATRACK article. Of the refs, the term "social dynamics" only appears in #1, a self-published paper (I would charitably say it will probably not get published in a serious publication anytime soon). Searching (either the whole web or G Scholar) does not turn up much better (e.g. this or other pseudo-scientific stuff).

The three other sources are all from the same research group and look more legitimate (e.g. published in PLA), the topic being to apply tools from statistical physics to other domains, notably election results. I think this is not a fringe topic (other researchers work on this), but it is never mentioned as "social thermodynamics". So, while an article on that latter subject could be made as a split-off of Statistical mechanics, neither the current title nor content are useful for it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is considered a fringe topic by many/most physicists, but it has been researched by quite a few folk over many decades. This wiki page on sociological thermodynamics isn't an RS but does have a good historical discussion of the topic, which goes back nearly a century. Among those studying it was Ilya Prigogine, a Nobel prize winner in chemistry; here is a review of his work on social thermodynamics. The topic seems notable to me, if not solidly scientific. But the nom is correct, this article seems a coatrack for a very small slice of the field, with a lot of synthesis tossed in. I'm still undecided, so a comment rather than a !vote. --Mark viking (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so the field name is rather "human thermodynamics". (I did find humanthermodynamics.com during my search but dismissed it as an isolated pseudoscience website.) This does seem to turn up more results, fringe but maybe notable nonetheless. I need to check a bit more. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting yet entirely cobbled from original research, so delete. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for solid notability improvements, interesting but still questionable for now. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 6 May 2016 (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.