Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inertia negation


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Anyone is free to create a redirect if they see fit. ✗ plicit  04:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Inertia negation

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Hypothecial (fictional) concept that seems to fail WP:GNG. BEFORE shows next to no hits on GScholar, what we have is pure WP:OR (unreferenced) mixing speculations about real science with fiction. Sole reference (not footnoted) is a book on UFOlogy and sole EL is to the Star Trek wiki. I have no suggestion for a plausible redirect this time - this is so bad I fear it needs to be blown up with a vengeance. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy,  and Science. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. My guess here is that someone wanted an article on Star Trek-style inertial dampeners, but was cranky that they're named "wrong" (because there are real world things called inertial dampers) and so made up this name. There's really nothing at all, anywhere, using this term, and not really enough on the Star Trek fictional tech to pin an article on THAT, either. There's some conceptual crossover with inertialess drive, but not that sources really come out and address, so that's no help (and that article is also facing the axe unless my workshopped rewrite wins people over, I suppose). Regardless, there's no rewrite possible for this one. Lubal (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lubal Did you meant to say intertia dampener? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as junk science. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC).
 * Delete Per WP:TNT even though I think that the concept of an "inertial dampener" could be a viable topic. It needs a full rewrite regardless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Zxcvbnm FYI: inertial dampener is a (bad) article Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as unreferenced speculation. It's best to cover these fictional concepts at the fiction itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pretty much everything about the article, including the term being used for the title itself, is the product of WP:OR. Rorshacma (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: completely made-up concept with no coverage and no scientific basis. Drowssap  SMM  17:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article contains nothing that was not derived from original research. Even the title was an original creation of the article's creator. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 15:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Inertial dampener which is a viable page. To me that makes more sense if someone is hunting around to learn more about inertia and similar; point them towards something that exists as against fantasy. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2024 (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.