Deletion of Unified mechanics theory

Comment: It has the feel of /PS|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: This is not the place for  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: 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 /PS|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.  —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks|This is no science that I recognise. Despite the papers it feels to be a hoax, pseudo-science, . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)