Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mechanothermodynamics


 * 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Mechanothermodynamics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Bundle nomination together with:

These articles have been discussed before in WikiProject Physics. Written by the SPAs and  to promote the work of Draft:Leonid_Adamovich_Sosnovskiy. Full of copyright violations. Just checking the two open access references, we see that Figure 3 of Mechanothermodynamics is copied from Fig. 1 in the first article, Figure 4 is copied from Fig. 1 in the second article, the equations in the section "Λ-interactions" are copied from Figures 2 and 3 in the first article. Tribo-fatigue has just been trimmed because of copyright violations, and simply added the same material again. I'm sure that if we checked carefully against all references we'd see that the entire articles are copyright violations, but frankly I already spent too much time with this nonsense.

The content of the articles is also pretty strange. The idea that mechanics and thermodynamics were somehow incompatible until Sosnovskiy managed to unify them is ludicrous; ever heard of the Carnot engine? Also, I did a search on Google Scholar, and I couldn't find anyone other than Sosnovskiy and Sherbakov writing about this stuff. Which they published in the predatory journal Entropy, as well as Russian-language journals that I cannot evaluate. Tercer (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete all – these all seem to be promotional articles for things (and in particular ideas of the primary author Sosnovskiy) that are also not notable. The only part where I don't go along with the nom's statement is that a new concept does seem to be defined: "irreversible damage" (which is probably not standard in thermodynamics), but I see no clear definition of this and this strengthens rather than weakens the case for deletion.  —Quondum 14:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 *  Delete all. I agree with what Tercer says, in particular "The idea that mechanics and thermodynamics were somehow incompatible until Sosnovskiy managed to unify them is ludicrous; ever heard of the Carnot engine?" I learned my thermodynamics in the context of chemistry, but I've talked with engineers about it, and it's clear that mechanics and thermodynamics have been connected almost since the time of Carnot -- and that's a long time, at least since about 1830.   Athel cb (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete all as the engineering version of vanispamcruftisement. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete All As a general principle, one of the great foundations of the scientific method is reproduceability. Our article on gravity mentions Sir Isaac Newton, but also cites the very many other scientists who have studied and made discoveries in that field.  Similarly our article on DNA is about more than just Franklin, Watson, and Crick.  These articles appear to be solely related to "discoveries" by Sosnovsky and his associates.  If these were notable topics, there would be many others working in the field. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The author's comments in the WikiProject discussion do indicate that most of this falls afoul of the no original research policy, and a quick look for literature confirms this. Other people outside of the creators have not adopted this, and reactions from reviews and the like have been things like "Why didn't they simply use the Boltzmann equation?".  Uncle G (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Which they published in the predatory journal Entropy:" I don't think one can really call Entropy a predatory journal on the basis of one awful paper about glyphosate. Just about every journal you can think of -- Nature, Science, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, you name it -- has published stuff they should be ashamed of. Notice that the Wikipedia article on Entropy devotes a lot more space telling readers about the glyphosate paper than they do about anything else. (This doesn't affect my opinion that all the offending pages should be deleted.)  Athel cb (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that what may make it predatory is if it is engaging in "pay for play" tactics where it publishes articles in exchange for money from the authors. This is a serious concern with a number of open-access journals. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't even aware of this glyphosate affair. I called Entropy predatory because of the incredible amount of garbage it publishes, they can't be doing peer review. I'm familiar with it because I have seen time and time again some crackpot from my field get a paper published there. Tercer (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete all until topic is shown to have more support in mainstream science. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC).
 * Mechanothermodynamics is serious science. It is a subset of Unified Mechanics Theory. This is a well established field in Mechanics circles. There is no reason to delete a well established topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tragab (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We require reliable, independent sources that establish that it is "serious science" or a "well established field", not assertions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete all just because someone once defined a word to mean something does not mean that the concept is notable enough to merit an article. That issue applies to all these articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom and Quondum's comment above. Promotional articles where the notability is not yet shown. --SimoneD89 (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: all as pseudo science, potentially WP:SYNTH and note also Articles for deletion/Unified mechanics theory where the main author (papers) on that... concept... is authored by the creating editor of at least one of these. Fiddle   Faddle  21:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Barejsha02 which interested parties are invited to contribute relevant evidence to Fiddle   Faddle  13:19, 14 April 2021 (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.