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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invariance mechanics[edit]

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

This page is mostly unsourced, low quality content. One of the key sources was withdrawn by the author in 2007. We have other articles that cover issues of invariance in physics, such as Noether's theorem. Porphyro (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I declined this for a prod feeling that it needed a full AfD under srutiny from experts in the field (rationale here). However, I did this with great reservation; the article has many hallmarks of WP:OR. I am prepared to change my mind if evidence of this being an actual subject in physics is presented, or even a common term that can be redirected, but at the moment I'm not seeing it. SpinningSpark 15:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one to PROD it, after a discussion at the physics WikiProject. I apologize for not linking to that discussion in the PROD notice. My concern stated in the PROD still sounds right to me: The page is garbled restatements of textbook material heaped on top of a "theory" that is sourced to a single arXiv paper which was withdrawn by the author. No links to the page occur "organically" in article text—only in "see also" lists and in a template created by a user blocked for disrupting physics articles. Google Scholar hits for the phrase are false positives. In short, despite having been created all the way back on 28 March 2007, it's a humdrum case of OR. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any secondary reliable sourcing for this topic. The article itself is written as someone's personal reflections on applications of their original research. Without any reliable sources, this article cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a bad article, but without RSs it has to be deleted. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:45, 12 March 2018 (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.