Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical system

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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawing as nominator. The points about the article potentially covering academic discussions/debates of what does and doesn't qualify as a physical system have convinced me. (non-admin closure) - car chasm (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Physical system

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:DICTDEF, the one cited source admits this is typically used as a term for "an aggregate of physical objects" - and given that this source is not heavily cited, it would appear this is still the majority view. - car chasm (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This term is linked from a lot of articles and is used as a further exploration of a term used in a lot of physics articles. It is not a WP:DICTDEF; it does not describe its part of speech, pluralizations, usage, etymology, translations into other languages, and so forth. The article can use expansion, not deletion. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RecycledPixels! And expand, when I saw how nicely the corresponding German wikipedia article is written, I blushed. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
German wikipedia has different rules on content, so I'm not entirely convinced, but I've added the references from that article to this one. The one book cited there by Mario Bunge (who is certainly reliable) says "A physical system is anything existing in spacetime and such that it either behaves or is handled as a whole in at least one respect" which seems like a very generic term to me. - car chasm (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it actually is a very generic term that needs further definition as to its specific properties and (e. g. in case of an open system) any sort of relationship with the environment, in which it is found. Used in thought experiments a lot. It's as generic as the concept of, say, food. --Ouro (blah blah) 04:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Common concept in science, engineering, etc. Article clearly needs some love. —siro χ o 20:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question of what can be treated as a physical system has been much discussed over the years: does a human mind qualify? What about the Universe in its entirety? And so forth. It's an encyclopedic topic. I could be convinced that this would make more sense treated as a section of another article (e.g., physics); for comparison, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses the term all over the place but doesn't have an article with that title [1]. But I'm not seeing a case for outright deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2023 (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.