Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical phenomenon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No consensus conditional to rewrite. If the article does not improve, redirect to elsewhere. Moreschi Talk 13:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physical phenomenon

Physical phenomenon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is composed of two parts: a misleading one and a dictionary definition.

A "Physical phenomenon" is a observable event describable by physics -- this is quite literally everything observed, minus some miracles.

Pjacobi 11:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't see what purpose this article would serve. Anville 15:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to be much more here than a simple dictionary definition. Arkyan • (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to phenomenon. That page has a much simpler and equally informing explanation. Someguy1221 20:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that some basic refresher courses in philosophy are called for all around, here.

    Connes (ISBN 0691004056) defines a physical phenomenon as the result of an experiment whose outcome is the same every time, assuming specified initial conditions; and that lack of reproducibility or lack of ability to convey the initial conditions, precludes something from being a physical phenomenon. Our article on Léon Teisserenc de Bort explains why that definition is important. And contrary to the implication of the nomination above there are quite a few things that are not physical phenomena, or are held not to be, and physical phenomena are not the only kinds of phenomena. There are philosophers such as Mugur-Schächter (ISBN 1402011202) who assert that spacetime is not a physical phenomenon. In A Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume holds causation not to be a physical phenomenon, but a psychological one. Naylor, in ISBN 0897894782, defines the concepts of species and fruit as mental phenomena, not physical ones. Nuttin, in ISBN 0898593328, draws a distinction between rain as a physical phenomenon and rain as a psychological phenomenon. Cunningham, in ISBN 0872205185, states that if one applies the duck test to a zombie that is physically identical to onesself, and still concludes that the zombie is conscious, then one has concluded that consciousness is not a physical phenomenon.

    I could go on.

    The problem here is that these articles are exceedingly bad at explaining the philosophy. They haven't seen any real improvement since 2002. However, that is not a reason for deletion. It is a reason for editors to pick up the aforementioned sources (and many others) and finally improve the articles. The above arguments, that are hung solely from a bad definition given by a poor article rather than from what sources actually say, are flawed. Keep. Uncle G 15:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. This article is pretty bad, but the topic itself is legitimate. Many philosophers (Plato and Aristotle not the least notable among them) have scores of pages recording their ponderings about the nature of physical phenomena: see, e.g., Metaphysics, The Republic, Monadology. A little research can turn this into a decent standalone article. If no one eventually does that, we can just turn it into a redirect to Ontology. Simões (talk/contribs) 23:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and suggest that the article be rewritten to something more closely resembling Uncle G's comment above. That comment convinces me that the topic is notable. The article as written doesn't. —David Eppstein 07:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • For a (redirect), phenomenon and ontology are too general, both in their current state and, i believe, when more developped. So is Category of being. Maybe Philosophy of Physics will serve as a good target (i linked it in the meanwhile). Regarding the future, Uncle G's hints are mostly negative, so if they are compiled into one text, it is better merged into a context (the above, physicalism, materialism or something in the philosophy of science might be good). Know nothing, trespassers william 14:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to physics unless this article is substantially expanded and improved soon. Overall, I am not sure what can be said here that is not already better said in the physics article. --EMS | Talk 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and suggest the article is rewritten to reflect different views of phylosophy of physics. Dan Gluck 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - There already is a philosophy of physics article. Maybe redirect this title to there? --EMS | Talk 17:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Redirect to Philosophy of physics. This article does not at all address the discussion that it would need to, whereas Philosophy of physics hits the topic almost right on the head. Ichibani 19:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Phenomenon G1ggy! 11:08, 25 May 2007 (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.