The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. It is patently absurd to call these things Laws of Energetics. The first two or three are laws of thermodynamics and have been around forever. Most of the rest are either moot or proposed. To retain this article borders on the incoherent. I hope those expounding cleanup and de-POV get their writing boots on right now. I came this > < close to deleting anyway. I would observe that unreasoned votes in a debate such as this should be rejected out of hand. The article faces serious charges of WP:NOR and without justifying your vote one way or the other, you should expect short shrift from the admin trying to interpret the debate. It's pretty plain to me that this material belongs in an article about the academic, rather than an article pretending to be about principles of energetics, established or moot. -Splashtalk 02:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to be the original research of User:Sholto Maud, as per the discussion at ths articles talk page. (To be specific: the first three "principles" are centuries-old results from physics, yet are presented as if they were new-found jewels.) linas 02:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of a number of related deletion debates, you may wish to study all of them before forming a judgment. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]