Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clockwork universe 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 keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwork universe theory

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

Whereas there's a popular analogy, there's no "Clockwork universe theory"... Most of the citations fail WP:V and the page has become a POV WP:COATRACK, as evidenced by the TOC: 1 Art; 2 Opposition; 3 World-machine; 4 Objections Due to Free Will; 5 Objections Due to Entropy; 6 Objections Due to Axiomatic Mathematics; 7 Objections Due to Chaos Theory; 8 Objections Due to Quantum Mechanics... A redirection to either Determinism or Mechanism (philosophy) has been proposed.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 14. Snotbot t • c » 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really understand the thinking. Clockwork universe has been in vogue as a theory describing the predictibility of the universe coming out of the renassaince since at least the 17th century. It resonates in popular parlance as a metaphore described in the introduction. Recent (mostly last 40+ years) discoveries have sharpened our understanding as the whether the universe is mathematically predictible. If these discoveries are discomforting, don't read about them but don't supress them... Just a thought... this section as you must have noted bears mostly on Newtonian dynamics which was the underpining of the theory... JudgementSummary (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and rename to Clockwork universe~~ Speedy Keep: The paradigm of the clockwork universe has been a notable topic of philosophical discourse since the time of Isaac Newton. A Google Books search on the phrase "clockwork universe" turns up several thousand results. The article already contains over two dozen references, many of which qualify as WP:RS and the "Further Reading" notes that an entire book is devoted to the subject (The Clockwork Universe: Isaac Newton, the Royal Society, and the Birth of the Modern World). "Clockwork universe" has even become a notable concept outside its original domain of philosophy and classical mechanics (e.g. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy). The article readily satisfies WP:GNG and the topic is sufficiently distinct from both Determinism and Mechanism (philosophy) that a merge is not required. Any portions of the article having issues with WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, or citations which fail WP:V can be corrected through ordinary editing. These are all surmountable problems that do not represent good reasons for deleting the article. I agree with the nom that there is no Clockwork universe theory per se. It's more proper to speak of the topic as a paradigm that is based upon a philosophical interpretation of physical science, especially Newton's theory of classical mechanics, than a "theory" in its own right - a word which should be reserved for scientific predictive/explanatory models which have become established through a substantial body of supporting experimental evidence. So I would support renaming the article to Clockwork universe (which currently redirects to clockwork universe theory). --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC) EDIT: Based upon subsequent discussion, it appears the nominator's arguments fall within the scope of WP:SURMOUNTABLE and WP:MOVE. WP:SK criterion #1 applies. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of improving the article as opposed to removing all mention of the subject, I think that dropping "theory" from the title is a good idea. While the concept has elements of "theory" and "paradigm" and "metaphor" and whatnot, I think that "theory" is the least supportable for the reasons given eloquently above. "Paradigm" is a big improvment but has the connotation of being an archetype or example as if the subject involved different types of clocks/watches. "Metaphor" is the best in my opinion but also lacks something of the essence of its widespread usage... and "concept" is too generic and lacks color JudgementSummary (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question: While I agree that the WP:TITLE, WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, and WP:V issues could be addressed by stubbing the article and moving it to Clockwork universe, I'd like to clarify that no one has actually suggested 1) that Clockwork universe be deleted, 2) that Clockwork universe is not a notable analogy, 3) or that the misapplication of the sources in the Clockwork universe theory article also fail WP:RS. MA, are you suggesting the subject of the article ought to be that of The Clockwork Universe: Isaac Newton, the Royal Society, and the Birth of the Modern World? From the NY Times review: "London before the mid-1600s was a general calamity. The streets were full of thieves, murderers and human waste. Death was everywhere: doctors were hapless, adults lived to about age 30, children died like flies. ... This little history begins Edward Dolnick’s “Clockwork Universe,” so the reader might think the book is about the Royal Society and its effects. But the Royal Society is dispatched in the first third of the book, and thereafter, the subject is how the attempt to find the mathematics governing the universe played out in the life of Isaac Newton."—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 10:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "that no one has actually suggested that Clockwork universe be deleted." Clockwork universe currently redirects to Clockwork universe theory. By nominating Clockwork universe theory for deletion, you effectively did suggest that it be deleted. Should your statement be interpreted to mean that you are now withdrawing your nomination? And no, I am not suggesting that the article's contents ought to mirror the contents of that book, but it may provide one useful reference regarding the cultural impact of the "clockwork universe" paradigm. --Mike Agricola (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why someone couldn't just change clockwork universe now/recreate that title later, as proper article/stub about the analogy (not a "theory" or "paradigm").—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 07:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be two elements in your comment: (1) A WP:MOVE from Clockwork universe theory to Clockwork universe, and (2) Editorial cleanup of the article's existing problems. For the purpose of this discussion, I would point out that neither problem necessitates an AfD (Articles for Deletion) process. It would be a good idea to discuss both concerns on the article's Talk page to obtain a WP:CONSENSUS first, both for the proposed move and for any major revisions of the article that you believe are warranted. Given your comment that "no one has actually suggested that Clockwork universe be deleted" it does not appear that you (or anyone else) at this point is arguing that the topic be deleted completely, which is what the AfD process is about deciding. I'm going to change my vote from "Keep" to "Speedy Keep" so that the discussion about the article's WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems can be moved to where it should be held - the article's Talk page. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, once again, nothing's stopping you from surmounting the article's talk page. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to what this article is about... much less the mutant "paradigm" in the stories you're telling. For my part, "stubbing" was a euphemism for deletion and again, just to clarify, IMO the target of the clockwork universe redirect should be to one of the mature articles on topics for which the analogy is primarily known, regardless of whether or not this "theory" gets deleted.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re: Speedy+Talk pageI should clarify that the issues mentioned + the two suggested redirects in the nom came directly from the article talk page and OR noticeboard. (It seemed to me, had I created the article, that a choice between redirecting it or gutting the OR, would both suck... that some suspiciously like-minded handful of objection-raisers were effectively deleting it either way). The article's talk page is wide open, and with regard to WP:TONE, at least, improvements to the article are being made. It's not unheard of that the exposure an article receives during AfD precipitates some consensus, discussion or wider input than its normal traffic might otherwise have yielded. Surely the intention was not to thrust this article back into obscurity ASAP, but it seems facile to argue the nom has no merit owing to content issues which, evidently, are insurmountable for a newcomer in relative isolation.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just undid a complete deletion of the section on "entropy" by MachineElf which is well supported by the literature. Indeed entropy is so fundamental to physical processes in clockwork universe that it determines both the beginning and end of all physical law. q.v. "heat death" of universe for instance... would appreciate knowing your thinking on the subject before wholesale deletion of major portions of article thanks JudgementSummary (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's step through the WP:COATRACK...

The 1st of the 3 short paragraphs in the contrarily named "Objections Due to Entropy" section is some vanilla 'what is entropy' copy with some OR about "the Multiverses", the only non-theological mention of entropy, and the duller of the three mentions of thermodynamics, etc... It caught my attention because you had just added the Hawking citation, (that would have doubled the number of cites, had it not failed WP:V).

2nd paragraph... now this is some top shelf OR: Science proves non-ex nilo whatnot to be impossible... many invoke a supernatural being... (who finds them delicious) but has nothing to do with the clockwork universe, which is well described by (lake of) thermodynamics and supernatural origin of all pre... no, on second thought post—Newtonian mechanics "thus raising the possibility of a higher order than can be described by physics alone"... (they should have sent Brian Greene)

The 3rd paragraph claims the laws of thermodynamics support Saints Thomas and Augustine before degenerating into bizarre claims about Atheists renouncing science and entropy. Although it sports the suggestive title: “Why physicists can't avoid a creation event”, the 2nd citation fails WP:V for want of Atheists.

A or B? A: Self-revert; or B: coming along quite nicely, thank you—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep" per Mike. Diego (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I agree with Mike Agricola that the topic seems notable, that this is a dispute about article content, and that AfD is not for cleanup WP:NOTFORCLEANUP. The article should be kept and the dispute resolved on the article's talk page, and if necessary, other dispute resolution mechanisms per WP:DISPUTE. --Mark viking (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBATTLE Please don't encourage farcical WP:DISPUTES. I have better things to do than clean up an analogy/redirect.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being a little off-topic in responding to a difference of opinion on editorial content in a section devoted to your nomination to remove the entire article, nevertheless appreciate your response. It's probably better to give reasons first rather than to cut out an entire section without comment as I noted. It's a little ironic that my adding an additional citation by Stephen Hawking "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever... The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang..." which in my experience is well supported science [entropy] and which is the entire point of the first paragraph, sparked your deletion. Also whether time had to logically begin at the "beginning" [at that ill-defined moment] was a pivotal point for Augustine marking a significant departure from the widely accepted Aristotelian philosophy of the time and based purely on reason without experimental evidence. Didn't want to get much beyond the physics vis-a-vis Newton to delve into history of philosophy. Nor is the use of "multiverse" non-scientific... Rather the entire thrust of string theory is the proposal of colliding branes [multidimensional surfaces enclosing higher dimensional spaces] which may generate sequential big-bang explosions... but even these highly speculative [because they are elegant math but unverifiable] objects would not remove entropic considerations, i.e. would still require a begining.... And also this is not a section on the validity of atheism but rather on the consequence of the current science... I had been distracted by removing suggestions of "theory" in favor of "paradigm and metaphor" but will rewrite my section on entropy [very fundamental to the clockwork universe with lots of fast moving new science] and see if I can (sorry) satisfy your objections... hopefully in a different forum... thanks...JudgementSummary (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're still ignoring the reasons I gave in the edit summary, the intent of which is to give an example of what the other editors and I were objecting to, when we tagged the article with WP:COATRACK and to demonstrate the remedy which is to be expected. Such tags are not meant as a badge of shame or warning to the reader, but rather an invitation to collaboratively address the outstanding issue. Consider how the final paragraph of your latest revision brushes aside all the string theory you've added... honestly, I don't quite know how to disabuse you of naïvely brushing aside the unanimous objection to such WP:OR as a "difference of opinion on editorial content" rectified by switching up the coatrack. One can't be blamed for genuinely failing to be informed, but by undoing the efforts to directly or indirectly address the issue, you're simply insuring that whatever sourceable contributions you may make are so entangled with coatrack OR, that regardless of whether clockwork universe theory is retained in addition to clockwork universe, it's unclear which, if any of your contributions, might help improve such an article.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:48, 20 February 2013 (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.