Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unified mechanics 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Unified mechanics theory

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject is not notable and it is not an established theory. Very few results in google scholar (all from one author; the 2016 works are unrelated) and practically no citations about it. After PROD'ing the article was slightly expanded and few references were added. All of them are from the same author. The physics content looks very bizarre. I suspect WP:FRINGE. Bonus: the picture. SimoneD89 (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary sources, primary sources published in borderline journals, article written by a WP:SPA. Tercer (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - strictly speaking, the first source, a book, is secondary. Many of the journals look legitimate to me (i.e., respectable impact factors). The real issue is that 11 of the 13 publication are coauthored by Basaran.  Boghog (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What makes a journal legitimate is not the impact factor, but whether it does proper peer review. This is of course very hard to find out, but MDPI journals are famously bad, and I'm personally familiar with the torrent of nonsense that comes out of Entropy. Heck, right now there's another AfD going on about some bizarre stuff that got published in Entropy: Articles_for_deletion/Mechanothermodynamics. Tercer (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Basaran has stated, in an MDPI journal, that it is in fact the same stuff . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that is an astounding coincidence. Tercer (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I would say that the Basaran references are primary sources because he is in all the publications where the name Unified mechanics theory appears. We need reliable, secondary and independent references. I would consider the book primary, dependent and not yet reliable (because it was published only two months ago and it takes time to show reliability). --SimoneD89 (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - The key word here is "independent" which I would agree to. "Time" is irrelevant, except to the extent it takes time for independent reviews. Boghog (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nomination and 's comment above. Entropy, Metals, and Applied Mechanics are all MDPI journals and so must be regarded skeptically. The book is by the inventor and so is a primary and dependent source. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is also worth saying that the current text is impenetrable. Even if it or related ideas were notable under other names, WP:TNT applies. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment/delete – It has the feel of pseudoscience using WP as a platform. It is also presented as grandiose (as being more "complete" than Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics combined) but without any rigour.  IMO this is does not belong in WP, and probably fails notability too.  —Quondum 17:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I was not aware that there was a need to unify Newtonian dynamics and thermodynamics. Probably because there is none.  I have absolutely no clue what the article is trying to say about the hundred year old man and the boy, either.  This looks like fringe nonsense.  Is this mentioned in any college physics textbooks?  Are people publishing on this other than the one crackpot who is promoting the idea? Hyperion35 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 *  DO NOT DELETE- Unfortunately, people advocating for deletion of the Unified Mechanics Theory, have never read the book or any of the hundreds of the papers or dozens of PhD dissertations published under different names of the theory since 1997. Some of the comments such as "I was not aware that there was a need to unify Newtonian dynamics and thermodynamics. Probably because there is none." and  "It has the feel of pseudoscience" clearly are not credible comments, just thrash talk which does not belong in a scientific medium.  Authors of these comments hiding their names under a psuedo-code oand clearly have never read or published anything in this field. If they want to thrash the theory then first they must read it then show where the errors are in the mathematical derivation and publish a paper. Not just street trash talk. Actually, read the book and hundreds of papers and dozens of Ph.D. dissertations first.  There is a Unified Mechanics Theory group on Linkedin with 4,300 members, it includes Professors from MIT, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College, Purdue, Cornell, Colombia, every prestigious university.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tragab (talk • contribs) 18:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to a textbook, not authored by Basaran, that discusses this subject? Ca you show me a course syllabus from a major university physics department that teaches this subject?  Can you show me systematic reviews discussing this subject? Hyperion35 (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * YES OF COURSE I CAN. Look at the University at Buffalo CIE 511 Advanced Solid Mechanics class syllabus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tragab (talk • contribs) 18:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , please sign your posts with ~. I see a "featured research project": Unification of Mechanics and Thermodynamics, Investigator: Cemal Basaran (no description given) and very little else.  A mechanics course (CIE 511) that evidently does not have this as its focus does not make it notable.  You are evidently not convincing anyone with your approach.  —Quondum 19:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Cemal Basaran teaches CIE 511. Mentioning your own idea in a course you yourself teach doesn't make it a notable idea. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 *  DO NOT DELETE- Unified Mechanics Theory name is recent, however the first Ph.D. dissertation on the topic was in 1997. US Navy Office of Naval Research started funding it with a Young Investigator Award [one of 27 scientists US-wide] in 1997. Until recently it was referred to as a Thermodynamic Theory for Damage Mechanics. It has been funded by federal grants in the US and EU in millions of dollars. [Yes, there is a recent EU grant].  Please do not treat the theory as a new religion. It is not. Please read the hundreds of papers, PhD dissertations, books, and watch lectures, then tell us where the formulation has an error. There is a very robust scientific discussion group of 4,300 + scientists, on the Unified Mechanics Theory group on LinkedIn. If you trust your knowledge on the topic please join us and discuss your ideas. Sorry, we do no allow speculations. You must have mathematical derivations to make your point Not just a keybord. Unfortunately, you cannot hide your identity on Linkedin.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cemalbasaran (talk • contribs) 19:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * LinkedIn, like all other social media, is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. We are obligated to base our scientific and technical articles upon peer-reviewed references, with a strong preference for secondary sources; moreover, we use established terminology, not neologisms. In addition, we have stringent policies against editing with a Conflict of Interest, which I encourage you to review. Moreover, given the extent of the verbatim overlap between your comment and that of Tragab above, and the fact that Tragab uploaded a photo of Cemal Basaran that they claimed as their "own work", I encourage you to read the policy against sockpuppetry. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not a broadly accepted idea, and it does not have the level of coverage we would need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * DO NOT Delete Using entropy to unify thermodynamics and Newtonian mechanics has been extensively studied in the past 15 years. Secondary sources are added.(talk) 20:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SYNTH. Using old articles to bolster the notability of a new topic or newly rechristened terminology is not how Wikipedia articles are written. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So: not peer-reviewed but in pay-to-publish journals, all articles actually addressing the subject are by its inventor, and the inventor says that it's the same as which is in the same boat, and invented by someone that the inventor here is friends with on LinkedIn? Uncle G (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is no science that I recognise. Despite the papers it feels to be a hoax, pseudo-science, WP:FRINGE. The diagram is... odd, and it is up for deletion on Commons. Except that it was not started on 1 April I had almost considered it to be an All Fools Day prank. Now, seeing the sudden influx of adherents as if for a ballot, I see it more as reputation building - using Wikipedia to build a reputation, not using Wikipedia to report on a reputation already built Fiddle   Faddle  21:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - DO NOT DELETE, Unified Mechanics Theory and Mechanothermodynamics are not the same things. In Unified Mechanics Theory entropy evolution happens along the Thermodynamic State Index axis according to the Boltzmann entropy formulation and thermodynamic fundamental equation of the material. In Mechanothermodynamics entropy is used as a degradation metric, however, dissipation evolution follows an empirical equation obtained from testing the material. If you are interested in the true scientific discussion please join the Unified Mechanics Theory group on LinkedIn. There are 4, 300 scientists who are eager to see your mathematical derivations proving UMT wrong. Cemalbasaran (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "". Which person with your name should we believe?  And why on Earth do you think that LinkedIn is what we are looking for, rather than properly peer-reviewed articles, including ones showing that this has acceptance by others?  Uncle G (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment DO NOT DELETE- If you want to see acceptance of a theory by others, In science, there is a website called Google Scholar. You go see who cited the work. The first paper on Unified Mechanics Theory was published in 1998 in ASME J of Electronic Packaging, since then every paper I have, except GNR and CNT papers, uses this theory. Hiding your identity does not give any credence to your comments. Prof. Cemal Basaran. Cemalbasaran (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You get one chance to express the fact that it be not deleted. One. You may make as many other comments as you believe will help your case. However, experinece shows that argumentative folk at deletion discussions,  especially those whose arguments do not rely on policy, come under the heading of "Methinks (s)he doth protest too much!"  Fiddle   Faddle  22:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually Google Scholar, hyperlinked helpfully above and used by the nominator right at the start of this discussion, shows no papers from 1998 at all, and the citations for Cemal Basaran are, it transpires, all by Cemal Basaran. So you're really going to have to actually cough up some citations of these peer-reviewed papers from independent people that you claim, because the story from Google Scholar is that what you are claiming is false.  Uncle G (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, knock it off with the obvious "DO NOT DELETE" sockpuppetry. We don't use DND as a vote!, so it's screamingly obvious it's you. These votes! have been struck on suspicion of sockpuppetry.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The "theory" seems to be more useful in relation to steel and other materials. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cemal Basaran, very selectively. The theory comes from a distinguished senior engineer who argues that since equations that successfully model material fatigue can be written in a form that look something like Newton's laws of motion this reveals a new principle of nature. The engineering is difficult and is fine. The problem is in trying to create a physical theory for why the engineering works. The materials models work well, which is why the many papers, but the basic physics for this theory does not exist. Arguments from analogy are not sufficient. For a similar discussion see the AfD for constructal law. StarryGrandma (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too soon to have a redirect. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One can always expand Basaran's article with a discussion about his research. I would not suggest to use the information contained in the article because the physics content is bizarre and it is not yet recognized as a physical theory. If we are talking about a model used in engineering science, other questions arise: is it his model? are his contributions relevant/recognized/notable to be included in his biography? I don't support redirecting the page because the name is not yet established in the academic community. One can compare the numbers of results and citations between unified mechanics theory ~ O(10), and constructal law ~ O(1 000). I would have suggested deletion for both. In engineering science I expect much higher numbers. --SimoneD89 (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with SimoneD89. Until we have reliable sources attributing something to a person or describing a person's research, we should avoid implication of such an attribution in an article on the person.  Because of the apparent overlap between similar approaches by several different people, it seems unclear that we can make any such attribution.  Just because someone has published about something does not mean it worth a mention – I would wait until it becomes more generally noticed/known.  Looking at Cemal Basaran, I wonder whether the subject is qualified as being notable for WP at all.  Virtually every semi-decent engineer or professor that I know can boast similar accomplishments, and the references are all sub-par.  —Quondum 13:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fellow of the ASME. Every semi-decent engineer or professor you know is a Fellow of the ASME or similar? You have high criteria for semi-decent. References are fine for someone meeting WP:NPROF. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Touché. I concede my error on that point.  —Quondum 23:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Without commenting either way on Basaran's wiki-notability, I have to say that the content of this article is so bad that an adequately selective merge would be no merge at all. Not even the references could be carried over; they are primary, recent, published in marginal-at-best journals, and unacknowledged in the literature. Nor is leaving a redirect a particularly good idea, since the title is not a plausible search term. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Barejsha02 which interested parties are invited to contribute relevant evidence to Fiddle   Faddle  13:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Do not delete:Unified mechanics theory is a very promising theory. The theory uses Boltzmann's statistical mechanics in conjunction with the Newton's laws of motion. However, the work on "Dynamic Equilibrium Equations in Unified Mechanics Theory (https://doi.org/10.3390/applmech2010005)" used Lagrangian to derive the equation of motion. The theory is very useful in life-prediction models — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.232 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Another primary source in an MDPI journal, which counts for nothing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Struck. Either loutsocking or meatpuppetry, please see Sockpuppet investigations/Barejsha02. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 18:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:TOOSOON.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC).
 * Comment: The spirited defence of the concept plus sock and meat puppetry is explained somewhat in WP:ACADEME, an essay for all participants here. It deal with the huge difference between an encyclopaedia and the world of academe Fiddle   Faddle  19:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd forgotten about that essay. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: It's very simple. Despite all the responses from supporter(s), I don't see any assertion that there are any reliable, independent, secondary sources to support the notability of this topic. (And when it comes to reliable, independent, and secondary having several sources with two out of the three is not sufficient.)--Srleffler (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not the place for WP:FRINGE or WP:SYNTH. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:27, 19 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.