Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy is a unifying concept

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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy_is_a_unifying_concept

Delete. Original Research. Eugman 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think it's original research; but WP:NOT a how-to guide for basic physics. Merge anything relevant to Energy, then transwiki this to either wikibooks or wikisource -- I'm not sure which would be the best place. bikeable (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I can assure you that it is definitely not new research. It is an attempt to talk physics in very-lay terms to the average person. It reads more like an edu-tainment presentation. Blnguyen 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The underlying concept here is really calculus. Original Research. --Pfafrich 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Another Comment - Well, energy in this case he is considering potential energy, can be related to a force causing it, (this is valid and meaningful only when the force is conservative so that the integral of F in the coordinate space is path-independent) so that F_x = - dU/dx, x being the coordinate and U the potential energy, to give the force in that direction. This means that when dU/dx = 0, there is no force, which occurs when U is at a max/min or a saddle point, which means it can be in unstable, stable, or stable and unstable in various directions respectively. Find any 1st yr universtiy physics book, or a 2ndyr+ classical mechanics book, and this will be verified to be well-founded knowledge, which the author is trying to convey in an informal way for non-physicists. I have no previous experience with the policy of wikipedia towards the suitability of informal pedagogical presentations. Blnguyen 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I doubt there's much information to merge to Energy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 01:34Z
• Transwiki to Simple English and Delete. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm new at this whole thing so any advice to helping out would be appreciated Eugman 02:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm torn. On the one hand, this doesn't cite references and isn't very well formatted. On the other hand, it's entirely true, and a VERY useful technique I was taught in Physics. He's absolutely right; if energy is conserved you can simply calculate everything based on energy equations and the solution is a lot easier to get. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a mini-essay about two very loosely related ideas. Someone who wants to write about potential-based analysis should build on the potential and potential energy articles. Gazpacho 07:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Energy then Delete DaGizza ^Chat 07:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge and delete is not a valid choice. To make the merge compliant with the GFDL the edit history of the article would need to be retained either by a history merge, or more easily by redirecting. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this content is already covered well. Salsb 12:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Authors Comment. Thanks for the discussion. I am fully in agreement that this page should be deleted and the contents moved to a new section in Energy. I started it as a seperate page to provoke the discussion, without messing with the main energy page too much, it seems that strategy worked (forgive a noob his sins). This section was not intended to talk about potential energy, nor finding the force on a capacitor. I felt having read the Energy section that were I an intelligent non-physicist, say a government legislator or a bright 14 year-old, I would still not understand why the concept of Energy was so very useful, rather like a treatise on complex numbers that does not mention that they unify solutions of polynomial equations and simplify electrical calculations. This section is intended ultimately to convey WHY people should take the time to bother to use the concept, rather than HOW to use the concept. Does it belong in wikipedia? I've read "what wikipedia is not", and it's not clear about what I'm trying to do. In part, that's why the article is so short and ill-drafted. The intention is ultimately to have one well-chosen succintly described example from each main useful branch of energy calculations (bounds on conversion, force finding, equilibrium finding etc). Where to put the section is a problem. If it grows to lots of examples, it should go at the end for risk of hijacking the main article. However, if it is to fulfil its purpose, that of getting people to spend the time reading the rest of the article, then it should really go up front. I could have spent a lot of time putting together a well-polished section only to be told that it was not wiki policy anyway. So in the spirit of "you can't break wiki, give it a try", I offer the aim of this section up for consideration. If thought appropriate, then I can work on better examples without touching the how part of the article, and referencing them out to the other articles that cover them in more depth. I guess I am really wanting the wiki to be more accessible in this article. We are all familiar with the so-called help screen, which only makes sense if we have enough background to understand its terminology. I feel that the assumed level of knowledge to be able to appreciate the information on the energy section is too high for many of the visitors that may be turning to that page for information. Expanding the breadth of the target audience is not easy. I do not advocate "dumbing-down" of the existing information, but do suggest an additional section which "reaches down" to hook people in, starting with why we should bother with the concept at all. The comment about edutainment is quite near to what was intended. It is possible that in attempting to present or sell physics, it is possible to stray away from strict NPOV, but are there really any other majority concensus ways of viewing the world? Could I go further? In teaching my children about energy, I have used the currency analogy, Joules is capital, energy is rate of spend, friction and other losses is taxes and exchange rate levys, levers and transformers get you between a few high value bills and many low value coins, it's an analogy that can pushed a surprisingly long way before it fails to inform. That's what I want to do, inform on the "would understand physics with just a little more help" level. My apologies if this is the wrong forum for that.NeilUK 09:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR and redundant per other articles. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move to user space. Everybody wins. Kafziel 23:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; transfer any relevant information to the energy article. -MegamanZero|Talk 02:10, 15 January 2006 (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.