Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inertia (anxiety)


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Inertia (anxiety)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete per 6, 7, and 8 and as meaningless or unsupport-ed/-able under its current title, and also per 6 as an unsupportable neologism under the proposed move title.

This page was created as a 600-byte stub in 2012, growing to 3.6kb with four references (e.g., rev. 992527804) and then became listed recently as an assigned topic for this Wiki Ed course. The assigned Wiki Ed student performed a page move which was reverted. The student then created a properly formatted move request (here) which is currently active. The move request proposes "Autistic inertia" as the new title.

This deletion request concerns both topics:
 * Inertia (anxiety) (the current topic) – not clear what this even is. No reliable references since 2012.
 * Autistic inertia (the move request target) – this is a neologism from a single paper from 25 November 2020 (Buckle et al. 2020; result #2 in this search). It's not even published yet, it's merely a preprint.

There are endless blogs and community websites which do contain the term. However, the title "Autistic inertia" has the look and feel of a syndrome or disorder, making it subject to WP:MEDRS. If the intention is to keep this article outside the stricter referencing required by MEDRS, say, an article about the characteristics or nature of autistic people, then it should be given a descriptive title of that nature, and not one that looks like a medical topic. My guess is there isn't sufficient reliable information for a stand-alone article even for that, and that the Autism article might be able to have some content added to it about the topic.

Some complicating issues: There is nothing worth merging anywhere; the RM target is a non-notable neologism; this article should be deleted. Mathglot (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the state of referencing was awful; I reduced the 3kb article to a sentence (with one, poor reference retained).
 * another editor has since tagged it for revdel due to plagiarism still present in the article history.
 * creator not notified (they are an indeffed sock)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 6.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * Keep and move to a broader title under mental health. A very quick book and scholar search seems to bring it up as more a general mental health topic as it being related to having the initial effort to overcome a struggle. Even Freud seems to have commented on it. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 01:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Autistic inertia. A google scholar search reveals academic publications about the phenonemon, such as here where they describe it as a common topic in autistic circles, and open discussion here, where it merits an index item and here. This presentation from an academic researcher states the term has been used since 2001 at least, and this recent doctorate states "Autistic inertia has been discussed by autistic advocates (M. Sparrow, 2016; Sullivan, 2002; van de Wettering, 2010)but has scarcely received attention in the empirical literature". So it's a thing, and academics publishing in oversighted sources are saying it's a thing, although it is only recently being given more serious research attention.OsFish (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Extra comment: Having re-read the proposal, I would like to emphasise in bold that Autistic inertia is not a neologism in a 2020 paper. Thus, a key premise of the deletion move is not true.OsFish (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The table of contents for this book:  suggests that it's a type of Executive functions deficit.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Chapter 5 lists " 'Inertia' (executive function deficits)" (single-quotes in the original) as one of eight "Cognitive Styles" covered in the chapter. The ToC is on page 7 and the content on p. 116. Mathglot (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Inertia is a natural state as it takes energy to make changes (especially on Wikipedia). In the context of autism, this is done better at analysis paralysis.  I don't think a redirect is appropriate as the current content is too flimsy and the title too vague. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete – The available sourcing is too weak. "Autistic inertia" is not a term in widespread use (not even that widespread on forums) and has too little coverage in WP:RS, no WP:MEDRS to be seen. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've been a clinical psychologist for 30 years and I have never heard of a disorder called "inertia"; there is no such listing in DSM-5 or ICD-11; and as Mathglot has explained in painstaking (albeit concise) detail, this alleged disorder/problem/condition (whatever you want to call it) lacks a logical foundation, including references to the scholarly literature. This article is an embarrassment and a sad example of our tendency to protect silly articles that should have never been published simply because they've languished on Wikipedia for a few years. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Markworthen, I wonder whether you have any further thoughts on whether this is a phenomenon some people experience, so that it could be "a thing", even though it's not "a disorder". There are many subjects that are not listed in the DSM-5 or ICD-11 and that are often rather vaguely or imprecisely defined and have no single logical foundation, but that I still think belong in Wikipedia (e.g., Love, Self-denial, Altruism, Charity (practice), Prayer – for that matter, we have trouble even coming up with a single, universal, logically consistent definition of Woman). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good points, WhatamIdoing. Thank you. Although this article should be deleted, it would certainly be appropriate (and helpful) to discuss the concept of "emotional inertia" in the Anxiety article. It's a relatively new hypothesized construct, but it has garnered some serious research.   Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at McHusky's advice, I'm thinking that the best option might be a redirect to Anxiety (or another similar article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I support that proposal. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The original article was basically just poorly sourced plagiarism, to be sure. "Inertia (anxiety)" is unsaveable as far as I can tell, since there's really just nothing there, and explicitly linking it with anxiety disorders would have to violate WP:NOR, since there's nothing to be found that even meets basic reliability standards, let alone medical standards. If we tried to save it, it would have to be moved to Autistic Inertia and it would need some serious improvements to sourcing. Unfortunately, it appears that there isn't much for scholarly sources, and there isn't anything that meets WP:MEDRS, for sure. (I still think something should be done for the topic, and that might mean a redirect could be useful, but I'll put that in the discussion section) --McHusky (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * delete per above 4 editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the above editors. Arsonxists (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm all for keeping the article if the sources demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, but that requires evidence that meets the GNG test of Notability. To date, the links provided above in a couple of the keep !votes above make claims which do not hold up under scrutiny. The following claims are made: I don't dispute that there are blogs with discussions on the topic, but that is not enough. So far, I haven't found even one reliable, independent source with significant coverage that would support notability of this topic, and we'd need more than one. Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "A very quick book and scholar search seems to bring it up as more a general mental health topic... "
 * No, they don't. There is nothing in those results that supports a claim of notability. In the book search, results 3, 4, and 5 have false positives with intervening punctuation like commas, or are parts of two sentences. None of the top ten book results contain the term. In the Scholar search, one result is relevant: the 25 November Buckle paper that I already linked at the top; it is the only one, and the authors themselves call it out as a neologism as far as its first appearance in a journal.
 * "A google scholar search reveals academic publications about the phenonemon, such as here ... "
 * This is not an academic publication, it is a preprint, and it is the 'download link' version of the same preprint I identified in the Afd statement at the top as a "paper from 25 November 2020". It's not surprising someone else would find it again, as it is the only academic result from Scholar that is remotely a match. The authors recognize it as a neologism, stating: "This study... is the first to explore 'autistic inertia'..."; with autistic inertia in double quotes.
 * "...and open discussion here..."
 * This links (Conn, 2019), and has one passing mention on page 28, referencing this 2013 unstrangemind blog post.
 * "This presentation from an academic researcher..."
 * There is in fact a web page with an abstract at that address, belonging to University of Kent Academic Repository. The web page identifies itself as an "unpublished" paper, and provides this full-text download link which is a dead link to a 2019 blog post of the PDA Society.
 * "this recent doctorate states..."
 * This thesis is entitled, "Understanding executive function in young autistic people: moving from the lab to the everyday", and contains the term "autistic inertia" three times: twice in footnotes (naming unstrangemind blog again&mdash;small world), and once in the body of the 303 page thesis, in particular, the "...has been discussed..." sentence already quoted above.
 * "Extra comment: ...Autistic inertia is not a neologism in a 2020 paper."
 * Technically, you're right; the term appears in numerous autism blogs and discussion boards, and has for a long time. But since Notability depends on reliable sources, and not SPSes, by "neologism" I was thinking about published academic papers. I haven't been able to find any academic reference before 25 November 2020, and the authors themselves state that that was the first time it has appeared in a study. Sorry about any confusion regarding what I meant by neologism&mdash;I meant printed appearance.


 * I still think something should be done for this topic, and it would be shame to ignore it despite its clear and strong presence as a subject of discussion in the autism community. Does anyone know what the standard or guideline is for counting things as "biomedical" or not? This topic is admittedly close to that line, whatever it is, but I think there's a strong case to be made for this topic having a mention somewhere in Wikipedia, given the degree to which it's discussed in the autism community—it's discussed so much that it actually has gotten attention to the point of being thoroughly described in published scholarly research (Welch, 2020), as well as directly investigated by unpublished research (Buckle) (I know that's not a valid source, but my point is just that it's enough of "a thing" to warrant at least a mention somewhere on Wikipedia). No one's claiming that this is a medical disorder itself, and insofar as it may be a potential "symptom" of autism spectrum disorder, there's insufficient material that meets WP:MEDRS. That said, I believe that insofar as it's a significant phenomenon and topic of discussion in the autism community, we have the sources for that.


 * Still, even then I'm unsure if there are really the sources necessary to support an entire page for that. It also could appear to be more medical than it really is, if simply put on its own page. Being in context on a page and clearly labeled as "a not scientifically/medically verified phenomenon and common topic of discussion within the autism community" could be enough to keep it out of the purview of medical sourcing standards. If anyone has ideas for where that could go, I'm all ears (eyes?). Executive dysfunction and Societal and cultural aspects of autism stand out to me as potential places, although the former may be a bit too "medical" in context, so I'm unsure if it would even matter how strongly I disclaim the medical validity of the term. Either way, could it be worth keeping the Inertia (anxiety) page as a redirect to whatever might manifest for Autistic Inertia?


 * (A couple notes: I'm the Wiki Ed student that was assigned this article. I'm not personally invested in keeping it around or anything, but I do think this is a great opportunity to get rid of this problematic article and instead represent this topic in a more appropriate fashion elsewhere on Wikipedia. Also, apologies for any formatting problems—I'm new to editing here, let alone on AfD pages). --McHusky (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , you're a new editor, and you're doing fine, learning the ropes much faster than average, so don't worry too much about formatting. This discussion should concentrate on the Afd question, as you did above. Other questions, such as,
 * are good ones, but not relevant here. If you would bring that up elsewhere, and ping me, I will answer it. (Normally I'd say, ask it on the article talk page, but since it may disappear, that's not a good venue. You can ask on your own Talk page, on my Talk page, or even at WT:MED.)  Btw, you have a great attitude, and you'd be a good addition to the project; I hope you decide to stay on after your course is over. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, wrt where to put such information, Societal and cultural aspects of autism doesn't seem like the right place (how is it either societal, or cultural? Inertia could manifest entirely alone, couldn't it?) but what about something at Autism spectrum? Mathglot (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Andrew Davidson mentioned Analysis paralysis above, and that looks like another potential merge/redirect target (not that there's much available to merge, but there isn't any particular need to delete it if we're just going to re-create the page as a redirect, either). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Andrew Davidson mentioned Analysis paralysis above, and that looks like another potential merge/redirect target (not that there's much available to merge, but there isn't any particular need to delete it if we're just going to re-create the page as a redirect, either). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't see this as necessarily associated with autism or even with psyhopathology; it's part of the human personality. There's an imense literaturee on various aspects going back for centuries  DGG ( talk ) 10:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC) ..
 * It looks like your comment may have been truncated on either end; as a result it isn't clear if you wished to express a !vote, or what your central point was. Can you review? Thx. Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC).
 * thanks for notifying me, one my my macros malfunctioned. I fixed it. It's a basic but general concept, comonly found in a great many people. "Autistic inertia" would be a special use, which I wasn;t previously aware of, andwould need a separate article if valid. As an example of what the article should betalking about,  I have an great deal of reluctance to start dealing with the flood of promotionalism  every day at WP, or , in the Real World, before starting the laundry. and I typically call this inertia. I don't think it has anything to do with any autistic tendencies, but just the human relutance to start a large and endless task. I use the word, while knowing perfectly well it is completely different from the physical concept.  Is there anyone here who has not used it that way?
 * Comment I support merging or adding new content about this topic to Autism spectrum. Based on the discussion, there seems to be agreement that the current article as written has problems that that could be fixed through selective merging. Spudlace (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)