Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Quantized inertia

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2021
Please copy the below text in reply to XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC) comments:

McCulloch rebutted Tajmar's work: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2021/04/response-to-tajmars-new-cavity-results.html, as well as Shawyer: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a36098824/emdrive-inventor-defends-failed-tests/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2021/04/09/inventor-warned-that-latest-test-of-impossible-space-drive-was-fatally-flawed/

Tajmar's work is about Lemdrive and similar light operated devices, and not Emdrive (microwave device) and is based on Taylor's paper, and Taylor's paper is based on McCulloch's theory. Also other not co-authored by McCulloch peer-reviewed papers are not about Emdrive.

There is also enough popular science secondary sources about the theory also in other contexts than Emdrive to make it notable for a separate Wikipedia article, for example: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-uk-scientist-claims-new-physics-explains-galaxy-rotation-theoretical-space-propulsion-1606367 https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/04/20/8558/the-curious-link-between-the-fly-by-anomaly-and-the-impossible-emdrive-thruster/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729002.000-sacrificing-einstein-relativitys-keystone-has-to-go.html?full=true https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2010/07/30/can-the-pioneer-anomaly-be-explained-by-inertia-modification/

and several radio talk shows and youtube videos about the theory.

You don't like one peer-reviewed source. OK. But there is plenty of others sources proving notability. Just over 25 popular science secondary sources is enough for notability, but there is also a book about the theory (published by the World Scientific publishing house), 30 peer-reviewed papers and DARPA grant is also very significant. Objectively the evidence unequivocally shows that this theory is notable. 88.145.199.104 (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC) 88.145.199.104 (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * hi! you seem to be able to edit the article yourself. please feel free to edit the article Quantized inertia yourself or if you want help, discuss it over at Talk:Quantized inertia. due to this, this discussion has been due to wrong venue. &#9678;  | melecie |   t  11:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I did not mean Quantized Inertia article, but this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantized_inertia . I cannot edit this page myself, because it is semi-protected (without any good reason IMHO). So my request still stands or please remove that semi-protection. It appears that the user against whom this protection was used is blocked anyway, so there is no point in keeping this active. 88.145.199.104 (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ah, okay. as such this edit is ✅, albeit with the removal of the final paragraph. however, please do not take this as an endorsement of this suggestion. &#9678; | melecie |   t  00:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Your comment is overly long (see WP:BLUDGEON, includes plenty of questionable sources (blogpost, ...), ... In short, the page was semi-protected exactly to avoid this kind of disruption. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  00:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * noted for future ERs. apologies, I've never participated in an AfD before and added this so that more experienced editors can take a look at it &#9678; | melecie |   t  01:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No wrong on your part. The above is proof, if I may, that the protection is working as intended. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You say "includes plenty of questionable sources (blogpost, ...),". That is not true. So why do you say that? Only the first link leads to a blog, but this is a blog of the inventor of the theory Dr. Mike McCulloch, so this is important. Except the last link the rest are press articles from reliable sources. You disrupt the discussion on reaching a consensus without a good reason. Besides on what grounds (what wiki rules) you censor the content of my messages in that discussion (not a wikipedia article) that do not break the rules in any way? Even if in your opinion the sources are not good, that is only a discussion page and not a Wikipedia article. So I have the right to put forward any arguments and sources I like as long as they do not break any rules, and you should not censor my messages sent to that discussion page, if they do not break any rules, even if you do not like the arguments or sources that I present. So please post my message in full there, as requested.88.145.199.104 (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the other articles, however from a quick search at least four are questionable: blogspot does not establish notability (only secondary sources do, this is a primary source), the forbes article is contributor-posted which has less oversight (see WP:FORBESCON), ibtimes is generally unreliable (see WP:IBTIMES, and centauri dreams seems to be a blog which is also generally not a reliable source (see WP:BLOG). &#9678;  | melecie |   t  10:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Those particular articles are reliable. Anyway, it is the job of my interlocutor there on the discussion page to answer to my reply and not yours. I only ask you that you post my reply to him, otherwise you disrupt the discussion process. So please post my message in full there, as requested.88.145.199.104 (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, they are not, and none of them would be sufficient to make an argument which would not be discarded by any reasonable closer. What you need is secondary sources (i.e. not opinion pieces; not primary reports of trials; not letters to the editor...], ideally in peer-reviewed journals to show scientific acceptance), independent from the main promoter of this. You should also note that yes, we are biased towards mainstream science and against pseudoscience. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I already put such sources there in my first message in that discussion, what I am doing now is only replying to the message of XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC), so please post my reply whether you like or not, as it does not break any rules. Also please explain to me why do you (including XOR'easter and Quandum) consider a blog article in Forbes by Brian Koberlein (by your own account an unreliable source) more important than all the other sources (including 30 peer-reviewed papers and over 25 popular-science articles, including New Scientist, MIT Technology Review, Popular Mechanics, Wired, Next Big Future, Science Alert etc.). All this has started by giving undue weight to that blog article in Forbes, which is an unreliable source according to you.88.145.199.104 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS shows how such sources can be reliable. However, they're never sufficient for establishing notability. Uncited "peer-reviewed" papers published in journals whose reliability can't be assessed because they're not cited (or which are predatory/dubious journals or the like - I can't know if you only insist on uncollegially targeting other editors) are not sufficient either, if they are only primary sources (such as experimental reports, opinions and letters to the editor, ...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * All this is irrelevant here. Please post my message as requested. 88.145.199.104 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)