Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrograde force


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrograde force

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested WP:PROD. Article is original research advancing bigoted theories on Islam, Gypsies, and hip-hop culture. A synthesis of ideas not supported by the provided sources. An essay, not an encyclopedic article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Revised: Points well taken; revision has been made. AceKnight (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: An essay. Joe Chill (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maintain: All this information already appears throughout Wikipedia. This is commendable attempt to redefine otherwise disparate ideas into one common thread, for better understanding. AceKnight (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's an attempt by you to advance your own theories. None of the online sources even use the term "retrograde force." This is not the editorial page of a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. We don't "redefine" things here, or publish our own thoughts and feelings. We report facts already documented by reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete fails on several counts, original research, essay-like, NPOV. PatGallacher (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-factual. Presents certain controversial opinions of the influences shaping human society as though they were undisputed facts.  Even the article title is irremediably POV-ish.  I can see a way to rescue the title, but only by making the article about an aspect of Dynamics (physics). Philip Trueman (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article fails to present any evidence whatever of the notability of "retrograde force" as a concept beyond what the bare use of the words would provide. Yes, Churchill used it. We don't have articles on every phrase Churchill used. Instead, it includes bald assertions by the author - in that sense, it fails both WP:OR and WP:N. Ray  Talk 20:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Simply original research by synthesis.  If there were numerous independent sources that drew together the skeins of this essay in exactly the same way, and defined the title exactly the same way, that would be different; this material is irredeemably non-neutral.  Accounting4Taste: talk 22:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete OR through and through. Cherry picking articles of disparate meanings does not an article make. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; per above, sources listed don't even use the term, which is very general and has been used (per google books) in a variety of contexts -- it's clear that even those who use the term retrograde force don't agree on what those forces might be, as the author implies. OR, non-notable, and very POV. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR and WP:NPOV, and the sooner the better. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is clearly a synthesis from various disparate examples, and there is no evidence of sources for this as a general concept. Also at least some of the sources are not reliable, though I have not checked them all. The whole thing is clearly an attempt to promote the author's own point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Despite cosmetic editing in an attempt to make less obvious the nature of the article as an attack page, it is still quite clear that the essential thrust of the article is an attack on muslims. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a textbook example of WP:SYN (and the kind of content that policy is meant to prevent). Robofish (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2009 (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.