Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phenomenological 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 delete. One (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomenological thermodynamics[edit]

The article claims that "Phenomenological thermodynamics" is a synonym for "classical thermodynamics", but doesn't provide any evidence that the phrase is ever used. Delete as non-notable phrase, content already contained in classical thermodynamics. Djr32 (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what I can tell, the phrase is an established scientific term, as I believe can be demonstrated here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], for example. Terrakyte (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. It seems to be an established term, but I'm not knowledgeable enough in the area to say whether it's just an alternate term for classical thermodynamics (in which case the two should be merged into one article), or at least somewhat distinct. --Delirium (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Add the refs and keep the article--apparently nominated without any search for references. DGG (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are all pretty obscure references (to put it mildly!) - I think my original deletion proposal might have been better phrased "doesn't provide any evidence that the phrase is commonly used". Comments from people with a background in this area of science would be helpful - I posted to WP Physics, is there anywhere else I should have posted to? Djr32 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why do you think they are obscure? One reference I have posted is from the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, and another is from the Polish Academy of Sciences. I can post more references. I don't think there is anywhere else that you can post, thought I won't claim to be sure. Terrakyte (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - For history-of-science terms like this, the most convincing reference would be to a history book that uses the term "phenomenological thermodynamics" and explains its relation to other kinds of thermodynamics, historical significance, etc. Journal articles on specific technical subjects are a bit more like primary sources when it comes to writing history-of-science articles. --Delirium (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think Delirium has put it better than I can - by obscure I meant that the phrase is used in the occasional paper, I don't think there's a "Journal of Phenomenological Thermodynamics", it doesn't have a classification in PACS, etc. (A general problem with calling something "Phenomenological anything" in science is that "Phenomenological" just means "based on observation but lacking an underlying theory" (see Phenomenology (science)). That sounds like a textbook description of classical thermodynamics pre-1870, but doesn't really make a distinct field.) Djr32 (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 650 google books hits = notable concept. Can the claim "this is just a synonym" be referenced? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to classical thermodynamics. It is classical thermodynamics. There is no any difference to my knowledge. Delete. This is probably indeed simply a combination of words as argued by Steve below. This is also a misleading terminology, because all natural sciences, perhaps excluding mathematics, are "phenomenological" (empirical). Biophys (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete- This is closely related to existential electromagnetism, right? Ok, seriously: There are plenty of recent academic citations using the term, but the article in question here says, "being synonymous with classical thermodynamics, is considered the pre-1870s branch of thermodynamics." So, I agree in part with Delirium that references to history of science sources would help. Still, I'm a little confused -- is the point that "phenomenological thermodynamics" is simply an updated, high-tech name for the practice of "doing" thermodynamics research using pre-1870s concepts, models, etc? If so, I'd see it as something special, not just a "synonym" for "classical" TD. ~~I'm inclined to either Keep or Merge, depending on whether some clarification could be offered~~. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - I am buying the "two words sometimes used together but not a significant topic in its own right" theory Jlg4104 (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the references given above, a bunch of which I read in detail, the phrase "phenomenological thermodynamics" isn't used as an independent phrase, but as two words that separately describe the approach. It's like the phrase revenge kidnapping, or the phrase birthday wine, etc. The phrase is used as shorthand for "applying the principles of thermodynamics in a phenomenological way", or "deriving thermodynamic theories starting from phenomenological observations". For example the Jap. J. Appl. Phys. paper cited above uses the term to describe an approach that starts with a phenomenological theory (a variant of Ginzburg–Landau theory) and uses that theory to do thermodynamic calculations. The word "phenomenological" isn't really modifying the word "thermodynamics" (maybe grammatically, but not conceptually), but rather the calculations themselves. The two words don't go together into a single concept or subject, and therefore it doesn't warrant a separate article. --Steve (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems that the only reason given to keep it is that "phenomenological thermodynamics" is a legitimate term. What about the rest of the article?
Here's a little background regarding the article. The editor Sadi Carnot (talk) started the article Phenomenological thermodynamics 3 years ago and he wrote in the article that it was "...synonymous with classical thermodynamics...". One month later he started the article Classical thermodynamics. So why did he start the new article if he believed that phenomenological thermodynamics was the same thing as classical thermodynamics??? Perhaps the answer is that this is an editor with issues, as evidenced by his talk page.
And look at Talk:Phenomenological thermodynamics too. The article has existed for 3 years and its talk page has no rating and no discussion.
Also, look at the meager number of edits in the history of this article. No content contributions since Sadi Carnot started it 3 years ago. Most of the activity regarding this article is related to proposals for its deletion or merge.
Personally, I think it is superficial, redundant, and not worthwhile, but if anyone likes something in Phenomenological thermodynamics, copy that part over to Classical thermodynamics now. It's time to clean things up and delete Phenomenological thermodynamics. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Classical thermodynamics. Since the phrase is used in the literature and is a synonym of the classical thermodynamics, the best solution seems to redirect the article to classical thermodynamics. Ruslik (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re "...is a synonym of the classical thermodynamics..." - As far as I can tell, this notion that they are the same, originated with the editor Sadi Carnot and is an example of how bad information can confuse.
  If I understand "redirect" correctly, it means that someone looking for phenomenological thermodynamics will be referred to another article instead of being made aware of the article phenomenological thermodynamics. If there is a redirect, it should be to Thermodynamics. Also, if someone was googling phenomenological thermodynamics wiki, wouldn't the problem article still come up at the top of the hit list? Let's clean things up by deleting the article phenomenoligical thermodynamics and not just trying to sweep it under the rug with a redirect. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it is not an invention of Sadi Carnot. Also, please read Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re your first sentence, see below. Re your second sentence, the link wasn't very clear to me and possibly others. As you are an administrator, it would be very helpful if you explained to us what redirect means for this article. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Here's an example of a redirect page: Dextrorotation, which redirects to Levorotation and dextrorotation. Anyone who clicks on a link to dextrorotation on wikipedia or elsewhere on the internet gets automatically taken to the article Levorotation and dextrorotation. Likewise anyone who types "dextrorotation" into the "search" box on the left, etc. The only thing left of the dextrorotation article is this page. If you click on that, you'll see that the dedicated dextrorotation article, which existed a while ago before being turned into a redirect, still has its original talk page and a history, and can be edited. But that page is hard to find, and essentially doesn't exist unless you know what you're doing. So it's basically like there is no dextrorotation article except Levorotation and dextrorotation. Does that help? :-) --Steve (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Steve. His evidence has convinced me that the term isn't notable for its own article. Terrakyte (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thermodynamics is generally divided into classical and statistical thermodynamics. Phenomenological thermodynamics is, simply, synonymous with classical thermodynamics. It is thermodynamics from the phenomenological perspective, which is simply classical thermodynamics. The two are alternative names for the same thing. They are used as such in many sources.
The article did in fact tell us all this. And it was right. So is Ruslik0. Redirect. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Steve, Terrakyte, and possibly others seem to realize, "phenomenological" is simply an adjective that can be used in many places. For example, in this excerpt from an article in the Physical Review, "This feature plays a central role in the phenomenological statistical mechanics discussed in Sec. IV...".[6] So you see, phenomenological thermodynamics isn't synonymous with classical thermodynamics but it refers to a phenomenological approach to any part of thermodynamics: classical, statistical, whatever. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2009 (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.