Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantized inertia

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. Consensus is that there isn't reliable source-based evidence to establish notability required for this hypothesis. Having received a grant is not an indicator of notability, which frequently came up. Whether a re-direct would be helpful to readers looking for information on the topic is an editorial discussion. Should an established editor want a prior version to see if there's material worth merging, I am happy to draftify Star Mississippi 16:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Quantized inertia

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Quantized inertia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is not enough coverage in the scientific literature from people independent of the proposers for an article on the topic. There are some popular science sources, two opinion pieces calling it pseudoscience, and one piece in Popular Mechanics, but again not enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended content ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
the QI theory has more than 20 peer reviewed published papers. The wiki article was quite informative as it was standing some weeks back, but was recently ruined by a few wikipedia editors such as XOR'easter that wanted it to look bad so he and his editorial friends could delete it. That a blog and a journalist call it pseudoscience is more or less irrelevant. Any serious critics must pass peer review. ChrisCalif (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC) — ChrisCalif (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. "There is not enough coverage in the scientific literature from people independent of the proposers " do you not understand how science writing works, it has to pass independent peer reviewers, more than 20 peer reviewed papers have been published on this theory. That means a lot of independent researcher have been looking at it and endorsed it for publications, plus editors of good journals. It is the critics of the theory that need to pass some peer review, something they clearly not have been able to do yet. Well there is a blog, and there is a journalist citing anonymous physicsts that it is pseudoscience. Ohh, some working on theories that this theory goes against that leak some info to a magazine journalist and for this reason you try to back up your argument for pseudoscience. Nice try! ChrisCalif (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete or, potentially, redirect to EmDrive#Speculation regarding new physical laws. Two of the three pop-science media sources discuss it in that context, so a brief mention there would potentially be acceptable. There simply isn't enough reliable, independent, secondary material on this topic to write an article up to our standards. XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Addendum Wow, this page has been busy! And no, getting a grant does not imply wiki-notability. Nor does superficial, sensationalist "reporting" on the existence of said grant. If this were a philosophy seminar, we could have a long and entertaining discussion about the demarcation problem, and how one might draw a distinction between pseudoscience (e.g., creationism) and shoddy science (e.g., N-rays). However, that is largely beside the point here. The problem is the paltry state of the available references, and the fact that the sources that do exist fail to support more than a mention in another article. XOR'easter (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - this is current science, and it's the subject of plenty of papers and a lot of discussion. It doesn't help that the author of the theory can be rather politically incorrect. Not sure if that is a factor in this AfD. Bmcollier (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect. Non-notable junk science. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC).
• Delete – nom has summarized it well, or weak redirect per XOR'easter. —Quondum 02:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep And restore the page to how it was before XOR'easter, Quondum removed interesting things about the theory and used a blog and magazine article as evidence for pseudoscience. And we will see what happen in the long run!! ChrisCalif (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The coverage in independent sources is very scarce, and what we have is mostly negative. I find it wrong to justify the existence of an article with sources saying the topic is a concatenation of buzz words and bullshit or pseudoscientific. Tercer (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Do not delete! This is perfectly good scientific theory, backed up by peer-reviewed publications. It is NOT "junk science" or "pseudo science". Deletion would constitute unwarranted censorship, totally against the ethos of Wikipedia. What is needed is restoration of the article as it was, before it was deliberately trashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:3D00:D01:794B:BF42:3687:4B1 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Note: This user has made no other edits on Wikipedia.
• Weakly neutral or redirect As one who inflamed the debate, I feel obliged to say something. Some points: (1) Per StarryGrandma, it's speculative science, not pseudoscience (there's apparently one journalist who called it pseudoscience; and no scientists on the record that have denounced it as such.) (2) It's marginally notable: At least three pop-sci articles dealing with it. Clearly it has a fan-base. (3) Primary sources are thin. All primaries appear to have McColluch, the proposer/inventor, as co-author, except for one critique, which points out the calculations are absent from the primary sources, and when the calculations are actually performed, one gets a different result from the original claims. (4) I've personally verified the calculations. They are missing in McCulloch's work, and the single critique made by Renda appears to have errors. Its frustrating that no one, including McCulloch himself, have taken the time & effort to publish a reasonably correct derivation of the claimed effect. (5) Although I personally find the core idea plausible and worth investigating, it does appear (to me personally) that McCulloch himself behaves in a cranky, pseudoscientific fashion. QI is proposed as a cure for half-a-dozen scientific mysteries; the magnitude of the effect is adjusted by a factor of ten to suit whatever mystery is being discussed. Nothing deeper or more refined is ever published - no amplifications, corrections or further developments or evolutions of the idea. (*) To conclude: I won't attempt to apply WP's various rules & guidelines for this situation/article; that's for someone else to do. But the whole thing seems terribly borderline to me. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended content ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"McCulloch himself behaves in a cranky" what dose that has to do with pages one should have on wikipedia or not, but yes not surprised several here after him even personally. "Nothing deeper or more refined is ever published" false claim, please see if you can find something known as google.ChrisCalif (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC) I've read everything I can find. If you can provide a reference to anything detailed, that would be nice. Put it on my talk page, not here. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Do not delete! Personally I don't believe QI is correct, but is an interesting and valid idea. Deletion feels like a personally / personality driven vendetta. Every time I look at this page there less information? What's going on?. Let the idea live and die as it will and document it on this page, deletion is un-needed censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.37.100 (talk • contribs) — 82.25.37.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Extended content ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could the editors referring to pseudoscience reference by a journalist and a blog explain why they think this should have much more weight above many peer reviewed published papers. The editors claiming it is pseudoscience have a clear parallel to working similar to these: "100 Authors against Einstein" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity#A_Hundred_Authors_Against_Einstein We are clearly talking about a vendetta against a person and a theory! I personally am skeptical to much of QI, do I want to delete information about it due to a journalist and a blog, of course not, I am not anti-scientific! Scientific questions can take 100 years of discussion to be settled. It is not done by journalist or even scientist screaming pseudoscience without their critics passing peer review and further discussion. These editors should explain why their argument make sense. Please explain to us! The history of science tell us exactly why also critics must pass peer review over time, and why not even 100 voices not passing peer review and or other (scientific standard) should be given much weight! These editors should be investigated if they are qualified or if they have a special agenda! XOR'easter and Tercer both claim to be physicists, how can it be they prefer to give MUCH more weigh to a blog and a journalist that loads of peer reviewed papers? ChrisCalif (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC) This is sufficiently explained by the Notability policy, which is your responsibility to understand and respect. As the first sentence there says, notability determines whether there should be an article on a topic. References that are by people who are not independent of the subject (irrespective of peer review) do not to count towards notability. In this discussion, whether it is pseudoscience or valid science is irrelevant, and comments on that should be ignored. —Quondum 17:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC) But Tercer, even a self claimed physicists, are using this as one of his main arguments to delete "I find it wrong to justify the existence of an article with sources saying the topic is a concatenation of buzz words and bullshit or pseudoscientific. Tercer (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC). So when someone have falsified your main arguments u just keep putting the deletion policy on another knob? Most independent that have followed what has happened clearly see that this is some kind of vendetta! A physicists using a blog and a journalist as part of his main argument against loads of peer reviewed published papers looks indeed more like a vendetta! Will this be taken into account, or are suddenly all the negative editors only on to one argument: lack of notability? Please explain? ChrisCalif (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Quondum do you stand behind your arguments on the talk page of QI "from a perspective outside of WP, the idea of quantized inertia is categorically pseudoscience"," and you wrote on another page “ "every time I try to read a paper by McCulloch I am freshly appalled. [...] it needs to fit the reality: QI is horribly audacious pseudoscience, so we can't present it in a way that it could be perceived as believable. —Quondum 21:46, 4 June 21" This based on a blog and a journalist or your own personal prejudice? Quondum now seems to have changed totally tactic for argument for deletion. Should we really trust a person ranting around on wikipedia (a public website) "QI is horribly audacious pseudoscience" and then suddenly switching to "whether it is pseudoscience or valid science is irrelevant". Should such highly biased editors be given any voting powers. This indeed look more like a personal vendetta against QI and perhaps agains even Mike McCulloch himself, we know Dr. McCulloch has attacked existing theories, but it is peer reviewed published critics. That he likely have made som researchers feeling furious about peer reviewed critics of their theories should be taken into account. A handful of editors at best (perhaps even some with multiple accounts) now just need something to hang QI on to delete it, and with it all or most of the critics of their behavior. ChrisCalif (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Also worth thinking about in terms of thinking about if some editors here very biased " I suppose we need to be more brutally explicit on the talk page. I guess I'll be the one to to do so. —Quondum 15:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)" From Quondum own talk page where he an XOR'easter discusses how to hit down hard on the QI page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisCalif (talk • contribs) PS I am now threatened by that my account will likely be deleted/blocked, they claim I have harassed editors that want QI deleted (it can be no one else as I only have written critics arguments against these), or pointed out flaws in their arguments? So here we are asked to discuss arguments for and against deletion. Such things as "QI is horribly audacious pseudoscience" is okay to put out on a public page by editors at wikepedia that supposedly should try to be neutral. It is not considered harassment I was told when I asked how I was harassing anyone more than these editors, even if it of course can ruin a persons job, career etc if such information is spread widely in public forums. But to be a bit harsh against editors with such arguments is clearly not allowed? PS I have contributed to wikipedia since the early start (with often years breaks). What we see now is more and more unfair editing, wikipedia is in danger of being used as a propaganda tool by editors spending lots of time here, to marketing their own ideas and own people, rather than to be objective. I am still wonder what is the consensus now about one of the main argument for deleting the article, namely "pseudoscientific", a view now Quondum suddenly says is irrelevant, what about the other editors that have used this argument they still stand behind it? ChrisCalif (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Do not delete. As stated above, this is a controversial hypothesis with many detractors, but an article on an unproven hypothesis should not be deleted just because the 'pseudoscientific' attribute has been applied to it. Many papers have been published, removed content should be restored to the WP page. Further new experimental work is starting this year ... I suggest wait a year until this new work is concluded, if the test findings are negative then remove the page. Pteerr (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The inventor is editing the article himself or having his followers brigade edits. This theory and the experiments is a classic example of Pathological Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monomorphic (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended content ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"having his followers brigade edits" please define followers, are other scientists interested in galaxy rotation models and therefore also this theory considered such followers? That someone is following a theory do not mean they are fans of the theory. Most researchers that are following are likely quite objective. So you must document that these followers are just fans without critical sense. I personal am following the theory and just did an edit to the theory, I am not a fan of the theory as I am quite critical to it. This is why the page indeed should have a section mention the critics, but if it is blogs and journalist with anonymous physicists as source this should indeed not be pretended to be strong scientific arguments against it, for that it has to be published in peer reviewed journals. ChrisCalif (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC) (Please do not delete my comments, the deletion decision should indeed be based on discussing, so it must be possible to comment on claims. ChrisCalif (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Twitter followers. I have been watching them conspire on twitter with the inventor to make changes and brigade the article. Encouraging people to edit an article about one's own theory is about as biased as it gets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monomorphic (talk • contribs) 21:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC) why can they not communicate on twitter? it is even more transparent than Quondum and XOR'easter conspire on Quondum's talk page " I suppose we need to be more brutally explicit on the talk page. I guess I'll be the one to to do so. —Quondum 15:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)" . Twitter followers do not mean twitter fans. For sure he also has fans, many that follow people on twitter, FB, instagram or wikipedia pages are just followers of peoples ideas etc. But you are sure all these are fans. Could even critics perhaps find reasons to step up for QI and McCulloch when they see how some wikipedia editors operate? One can naturally communicate on any social media, the issue here is if one have reliable sources to back up claims for deletion of the page. The pseudoscience argument used as main argument by several editors seems totally nonsense. If not stand up and defend it!! ChrisCalif (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC) "Encouraging people to edit an article about one's own theory is about as biased as it gets" even if one at the same time shows to that some anonymous editor want to delete an article based on journalist and blogs claiming it is pseudoscience? Or perhaps that is the time when even critics of his theory want to stand up and defend, because they understand like me that even science itself then is under attack on wikipedia, by a handful of wikipedia editors. ChrisCalif (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Written further above by one who wants to delete : "This theory and the experiments is a classic example of Pathological Science." :Pathological science is an area of research where "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science So more than 20 peer reviewed papers, mostly in very respectful journals (with few exceptions) must have tricked the referees and the Editor(s) into believe in false results, wishful thinking etc. By what, for example by QI tested against galaxy rotation data and fits without dark matter! Sure you or others can ramble about your own pseudo-views on blogs etc. but critics of peer reviewed published science actually require peer reviewed critics! And even when such critics passes peer review and gets published it can take time before the critics is accepted or refuted by others again. More than 20 + peer reviewed papers are published, only 1 critical(?), with constructive critics mostly. Claims such as "classic example of Pathological Science" seems to have zero backing, and must therefore concluded to be a highly biased view based on prejudice. Please debate if one claim otherwise, we are listening, if one has backing for the theory being "Pathological Science" then please provide good sources for such claims, otherwise you should come up with other reasons for delete the article, or change your mind? ChrisCalif (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep and restore to the version from 27 June 2020‎ or similar. The claim of some editors above that allegedly there are only 2-3 secondary sources and that only McCulloch with collaborators and Renda published scientific papers on this is false. There are over 30 peer-reviewed papers on this theory.

List of potential sources ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apart from Renda's paper there are also two different peer-reviewed papers by Taylor and Pickering listed here: https://quantizedinertia.com/researches/ And also there is a peer-reviewed paper by O Neunzig, Marcel Weikert and Martin Tajmar: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351099142_Thrust_measurements_and_evaluation_of_asymmetric_infrared_laser_resonators_for_space_propulsion and a conference paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350108417_Thrust_Measurements_and_Evaluation_of_Asymmetric_Infrared_Laser_Resonators_for_Space_Propulsion There are also many papers on this theory by George Soli: https://www.researchgate.net/search/publication?q=quantised+inertia https://www.researchgate.net/search/publication?q=quantized+inertia and Espen Gaarder Haug: http://www.espenhaug.com/Physics.html There is also a book on this theory: https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Edge-Cosmological-Model-Inertia/dp/9814596256 There are also plenty of popular science secondary articles and radio interviews mentioning this theory, for example: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/09/darpa-funds-developing-quantized-inertia-into-breakthrough-space-propulsion.html https://www.wired.com/story/mach-effect-thrusters-interstellar-travel/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a24219132/darpa-emdrive/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a33917439/emdrive-wont-die/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/04/20/8558/the-curious-link-between-the-fly-by-anomaly-and-the-impossible-emdrive-thruster/ https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-british-scientists-new-physics-theory-accidentally-proves-controversial-space-1556098 https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-uk-scientist-claims-new-physics-explains-galaxy-rotation-theoretical-space-propulsion-1606367 https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/what-emdrive-why-should-i-care-1579181 https://www.sciencealert.com/this-new-hypothesis-could-explain-why-the-controversial-em-drive-works https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-09/uop-sr091418.php https://www.vice.com/en/article/7x3ed9/darpa-is-researching-quantized-inertia-a-theory-of-physics-many-think-is-pseudoscience http://mlodytechnik.pl/technika/28362-nowa-teoria-na-temat-dzialania-silnika-emdrive-silnik-mozliwy-inaczej https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2010/07/30/can-the-pioneer-anomaly-be-explained-by-inertia-modification/ https://www.wearefinn.com/topics/posts/plymouth-researchers-to-study-fuel-free-propulsion/ https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/DARPA_invests_in_propellant-free_rocket_theory_999.html https://www.eteknix.com/nasas-impossible-emdrive-explained-new-theory-inertia/ https://www.thespaceshow.com/guest/dr.-m.e.mike-mcculloch https://sciencetrends.com/quantised-inertia-gets-rid-dark-matter/ https://audioboom.com/posts/5378659-em-drive-confounds-newtonians-in-search-of-a-new-physics-mike-mcculloch-plymouth-university-david-livingston-spaceshow-com http://www.thespaceshow.com/show/17-jun-2016/broadcast-2722-em-drive http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729002.000-sacrificing-einstein-relativitys-keystone-has-to-go.html?full=true There was also a TEDx talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnNKC82wUmY and many other videos on this theory or mentioning this theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.145.199.104 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC) It is unknown why some editors consider it pseudoscience, when there is no evidence (no peer-reviewed papers claiming that) and no sources (apart from the sole Brian Koberlein's blog-like article) claiming that. There are over 30 peer-reviewed papers on this theory. It is improbable that a theory published in so many peer-reviewed papers is pseudoscience. Wikipedia is based on sources and not personal feelings or point of view of editors (see WP:NPOV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view ). Unfortunately some of editors seem to forget that. 88.145.199.104 (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect if the current sources cited are the best available, then I don't think there's enough material to write a full article on. It's nice that there are several papers on the topic, and also nice to see a grant has been awarded; but there simply aren't enough people working on the topic. After almost 15 years, something like 80% of papers on the topic are by Mcculloch, which is not a good sign. Banedon (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended content ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
McCulloch tweeted recently that: "We have an opportunity to become a cheap-energy, interstellar species with #QI. Already $1.4M funding, 25 papers. 8 labs involved. One 0 thrust, but +ve thrusts from 4 labs so far. 10 theory groups collaborating. If we can confirm thrust then we get to Proxima Centauri in 20 yrs." https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1400475818158141441 To me that sounds like this theory is gaining a momentum. 8 labs involved in experiments right now to confirm this theory and 10 theory groups collaborating. 88.145.199.104 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Which are these other labs & theory groups? Banedon (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC) McCulloch posted a few weeks ago a tweet with a table listing the lab groups. Ask him directly for theory groups, if you are interested.88.145.199.104 (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Link it, if you want to change my mind. Banedon (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC) "if the current sources cited are the best available" no these where additional references. See also for example http://quantizedinertia.com/researches/ where there are links to many of the peer reviewed published papers on the theory, click on them please one by one, check out the journals etc., and there are more published papers on this theory than this ! The pseudoscientific argument was bogus, the "Pathological Science" argument is totally bogus and backed with nothing. What is the button one desperately look for to delete (or redirect it to be one line on another page?) the page now? There is also another issue here, if people/editors are using years to build as objective pages as they can, and suddenly a handful of editors with personal views such as; this is pseudoscience, are deleting the page one are discouraging many from contributing to wikipedia. The "senior" editors, based on spending loads of time here can then become bullies and abuse their powers. Why on earth was the page not marked as non-qualified years ago? Sure the argument will be that happens all the time as so many new pages are created, but no this is not the case here. The page has much more reliable reference now than when people spent time building it. I have personally never contributed to it, before last few days, trying to remove unfair pseudoscience label in top of page. But hopefully someone can come up with a much more reliable type of wikipedia soon if wikipedia allow its editors to abuse its rules for personal views. ChrisCalif (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC) First, everything after your first two sentences is irrelevant to what I wrote. Second, if you click that link, you'll find that the objection I wrote is correct, something like 80% of papers involve McCulloch. There're a grand total of three papers that don't involve him. Banedon (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC) No, there are 4 peer-reviewed papers where he is not a co-author (Renda, Taylor, Pickering and Tajmar et al). In total there are about 30 peer-reviewed papers on this theory. There are also a dozen or so published only on-line papers (in the researchgate, vixra and like) by George Soli and Espen Gaarder Haug. There are also over 25 popular science articles or other publications. There is also a book about this theory. DARPA grant is also very significant. All this confirms that this subject is notable, therefore it should have a Wikipedia article.88.145.199.104 (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Ok, so there are four (Pickering wrote two papers) - which is still too low. I originally quoted 80%. 26/30 is more than that. The objection remains. Banedon (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC) The papers by Neunzig, Weikert and Tajmar (only one of which is peer-reviewed) discuss quantized inertia in the context of the EmDrive, which supports the point raised above that quantized inertia isn't noteworthy as a stand-alone topic that needs its own article. Moreover, they show that the EmDrive doesn't work — in short, there's no need for quantized inertia to explain a phenomenon that doesn't exist. That's hardly evidence that Wikipedia needs a whole article on the subject. Rather the opposite, really. One of Pickering's papers is in Advances in Astrophysics, a "journal" from the very-obviously-predatory publisher "Isaac Scientific Publishing" whose most recent article is Chandra "COVID came from space!" Wickramasinghe writing about "Polonnaruwa Stones Revisited – Evidence for Non-Terrestrial Life" [1]. It is not a reliable source. And saying that a subject is on viXra like that's a good thing is particularly entertaining. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep This theory was valid enough to recieve $2m in DARPA funding. While speculative, this alone justifies it's mention here. The theory proposes falsifiable tests and active experiments by accredited universities are ongoing. — 47.55.230.175 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC) (UTC).
• Delete - This is very clearly a WP:FRINGE topic: it may have a number of publications associated with it, but they're almost all by one author and they have very few citations. There are a number of single-topic users who have focused on it recently, but that doesn't mean we should cover it here. - Parejkoj (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended content ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The links to some of the secondary sources that I copied above clearly prove that this theory is notable, so it does not matter if it is fringe or not when it is notable.88.145.199.104 (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC) wikipedia has lots of pages on "fringe" theories " "For writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." This is is clearly not a good reason to delete, this is a reason to mention claims only backed by peer reviewed research and yes also to mention critics as has been done. One can easily add comments such as; the theory is still relatively new and several questions clearly not settled, but that has been clear from the page a very long time, if not please contribute constructively. ChrisCalif (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC) "but they're almost all by one author " this seems to be a false claim, I quickly counted about 10 (and I am sure there are more) peer reviewed published papers with 2 authors or other authors on the topic than the inventor Dr. McCulloch. Please at least use google search before just throwing out some false claims, seems very unprofessional. In addition natural loads of popular science articles by others. So false claim again it seems, just to try to come up with something sounding reasonable to delete, but we deserve better. We deserve that one do at least a minimum amount of research, like a google search, to check if the arguments one throw out have validity, and not are just reflecting personal feelings. If counter arguments please come with them! ChrisCalif (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC) From one on twitter "I was doing searches of "Wikipedia" on LinkedIn. The number of Wikipedia Editors offering their services for pay is huge." So then an important question is if any of the editors that want to ban this page has been paid by anyone that makes them biased? I was wondering how some editors have so much time to work on wikipedia, could be many, but if a series of wikipedia editors takes paid to edit for certain interest that seems to be reason for declaring conflict of interest. Little is written about this phenomena (paid wikipedia editors), perhaps worth a wikipedia page on its own, and something that the management could investigate, if it leads to biased editing. PS I am not accusing a single editor here for this, I am just kindly asking if any such conflict of interest. I just searched LinkedIn and got confirmed many people and even firms offering wikipedia editing for pay. May be nothing wrong with it, but it can clearly lead to possible conflict of interest also I think I can see. May be a topic for a own page, so I will not go further on with that here, but likely on other page, is there a page for this topic on wikipedia? ChrisCalif (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC) I am now warned that my account will possibly be closed/blocked for pointing out the fact that many wikipedia editors are listing themself to take paid for editing (they lost this on LinkedIn), even firms specializing in this. I am not s single purpose account as I am accused for, I am not a paid account. I am here to contribute to wikipedia pages and in particular for objectivity, that involves one perhaps also need to look into the dark corners of wikipedia? Should one be blocked for that? ChrisCalif (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Law of holes. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC). ' @ChrisCalif: You're absolutely right. Many (maybe most) paid editors do not disclose it..' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Likely_many_editors_taking_paid_that_not_disclose_it So is it then so bad for me to ask if someone has forgot to disclose here if they are paid editors? Because I find it strange that out of lots of positive popular science articles some editors on this page, that wants to delete, has used the very few popular science articles, by for example a journalist referring to anonymous physicists to declare the theory as pseudoscience. And used the pseudoscience argument as one of main arguments for deletion. Why no focus on the 20+ peer review papers and the very many positive popular science articles. I think one can indeed question the motives for such editing and deletion suggestions. And I am clearly not the only one suspecting that wikipedia has considerably numbers of paid editors working for special interest the do not disclose it. Again I do not claim anyone here are paid editors, I kindly asked to disclose it, if it was the case. I remind you all that this is a discussion page for arguments for and against the quantized inertia page, please explain how or what of my points are totally irrelevant? We are there to discuss relevant information, are we not? And if not relevant then please just point it out. I am not a person that must be right on everything. ChrisCalif (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Did you just reply to yourself? Nevermind, I'm dumb. That's from the link. Sorry. Carry on with your wall of text brigades, everyone! Also, you mentioning people here having an undisclosed paid COI, then claiming you're not trying to say they have one, then continuing to imply they do, is pretty much you saying they have one, is it not? If you want to bring every single person here that didn't follow you from Twitter to the admins, do so. AdoTang (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC) 'Also, you mentioning people here having an undisclosed paid COI, " I never did, stop put claims on that i mentioned this or that, you can simply quote what I said instead instead of twisting my words. I just asked if someone did to disclose it. What are the arguments now standing to delete the quantized inertia page? ChrisCalif (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC) The argument for deletion is that "There is not enough coverage in the scientific literature from people independent of the proposers for an article on the topic" and "not enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG". "Did you just reply to yourself? " No I did not, I have no prior knowledge of the editor that replied: "You're absolutely right. Many (maybe most) paid editors do not disclose it" .ChrisCalif (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete This is that EMDrive nonsense which has thus far failed to produce any experimental results which were distinguishable from background noise. The creator's Twitter account (even setting aside his childish claim that everyone !voting to delete this article is a paid shill) reads like the conversations I used to have with my nerdier friends over a bunch of bong hits in 1996. There's nothing resembling real science here, and the most mainstream coverage it's gotten directly has been from opinion pieces calling it pseudoscience. I can't find even the barest hint of any engagement with this theory in the wider scientific literature; everything that mentions it is either McCulloch or one of his students. It's not our job to amplify this particular pseudoscience into the spotlight. If it manages to get there on it's own, that's fine, but for us to be hosting this nonsense before that time is clearly a bad call. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended Content ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
EMDrive predictions is just a small part of the theory and still a series of labs works on testing if anything in it or not, so why come with prejudice before most labs finished with their tests? The negative test was predicted negative by the inventor of the EMDrive, so it was not really a test, but every voice and result should be looked at, I am in no way a EMdrive expert, why we should hold us self to peer reviewed published research. Such discussions should be let go for some years, in particular when several labs work on tests, before making early conclusions. What about galaxy rotations, it is very good at predicting, something already tested and published by Dr. McCulloch. Certainly there could be issues with this theory also, read up on MOND on wikipedia that theory has lots of issues. MOND is older and has more cover, but should we really have to wait 40 years before any new theory deserves a page on wikipedia? Dark matter has zero observations that support the theory, but since many researchers work on that theory it is accepted as good fish. ChrisCalif (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC) WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion ain't gonna win you anything, except maybe a block if you get too annoying with it. But I can see on your talk that you've already been warned about this, so if you keep it up, I won't warn you anymore, I'll ask an admin to go ahead and block you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC) "please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors" why do you try to stop me from discussion? Not only are you trying to censor a theory in science, you are also trying to censor me from discussing how many of the arguments here to delete that page seems incredible weak. I find the many treats about blocking me as pure harassment techniques to try to silence me. But I would not at all be surprised if one of you also abuse your editorial powers to block me from simply discuss arguments used to delete a wikipedia page. ChrisCalif (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC) They are now working hard to block me from comment critically here. Just look this at this very false claim by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bbb23#requesting_an_admin_and_you_seem_to_be_active_at_the_moment And yes false claims to censor critical questions is serious! ChrisCalif (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Here is the totally false claim by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants "and accusing others of paid editing for the past few hours" this is totally false claim, please read the page, where I simply and politely ask if anyone should be paid editors then it is a good time to disclose. I specifically mentioned "PS I am not accusing a single editor here for this, I am just kindly asking if any such conflict of interest. " Please read the whole page above you here! Stop with false claims to censor one of the voices here discussing the extreme weakness in the arguments for censoring the quantized inertia page. ChrisCalif (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC) – Again, Do Not Delete. To answer the response by 'Monomorphic' saying 'The inventor is editing the article himself or having his followers brigade edits', my name is not McCulloch and he has not 'had' me do anything. Yes, QI is an unproven hypothesis, but I share the opinion of DARPA and many others that it's of such potential importance that it must continue to be assessed. Is much of this unedifying deletion discussion a demonstration of the first of Clarke's three laws ? ( BTW, Monomorphic also deleted my edit stating that it was a link to McCulloch's personal blog : it was not, it could clearly be seen to be a link to a University of Plymouth official job posting for a QI Research Assistant post, see reference below ) Pteerr (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Second !vote bodly struck through by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC) — Pteerr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. You cannot make your case twice! Please strike through your second "Do Not Delete". Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the advice, I'm new to this. It seems you have done it for me, I hope it's OK now. Pteerr (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - This is fringe and likely pseudoscience but the grant given to explore it makes it notable as supported by references.Weburbia (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This is fringe and likely pseudoscience, and a grant does not change that or make it notable. This is not an encyclopedic topic. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep but trim right back to a stub. It's a historically interesting minor idea that so far didn't pan out but hasn't been absolutely ruled out. There are certainly fringe aspects to its more excitable supporters, not least on this page, but the original idea is no sillier than many others in theoretical physics, such as fractal cosmology. Though I can see arguments that merging to another page might reduce the effort of preventing fringe inspired bloat. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The trouble is, I think, that any sufficiently selective merge would be indistinguishable from a redirect. By the time we'd be done cutting the prose down to something that secondary sources can actually support, it would be simpler to just write 2–3 sentences from scratch instead. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

There aren't tons of secondary sources, but there are a few: Forbes [2], Phys.Org [3], Popular Mechanics [4], Vice [5]. It's not great but it's not nothing. A stub would look much like the current lede with more appropriate references. The Unruh stuff would cut down to a single sentence. The criticism section just repeats the lede so isn't needed in a stub. The current experiments might or might not survive. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I found the phys.org item while searching for coverage prior to the AfD. They're an aggregator site known for churnalism; their item on quantized inertia is basically a press release, with lengthy quotes from McCulloch and no apparent effort to get commentary from anyone else. If that were the best writeup I could get for my own research, I'd drink myself to sleep. The other sources add up to not-great-but-not-nothing, as you say. I considered the stub route (we debated this at WT:PHYS for a while before it came to AfD). What ultimately tipped me against that was that the not-great-but-not-nothing references pretty firmly situate it within the space-drive context. XOR'easter (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's on the edge, but I tend towards inclusion where possible. Anyway I had a go at a quick stubification, so see what you think. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly an improvement — thank you for putting in the effort! Seeing it so much shorter, though, just makes it seem more apt to blow away in the wind; or, more prosaically, cutting it down to stub size makes folding it into another article seem even more fitting. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! If nothing else I wanted to identify the bits and sources that were arguably worth moving somewhere else. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Administrator note I have blocked ChrisCalif (talk · contribs) from editing this discussion for the remainder of the debate, following persistent disruption. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333: You might want to give them a break from the related article and its talk page, too: their latest post over there also not particularly constructive... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete the topic lacks persistent coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:N. ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Miniapolis 23:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I mean I am used to having only one or to sources that I can use for articles I create on taxa (because taxa are inherently notable [See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES), that doesn't mean I am going to allow that same standard elsewhere. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Roxy . wooF 07:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep or otherwise rename to include "Hypothesis" in the title. The general claim of "Quantised Inertia" has yet to be proven experimentally, but there have been a number of scientific papers written about it including at least one skeptical analysis. The theory makes testable predictions thus it is a testable hypothesis. There are other articles on Wikipedia that could more readily and easily be dismissed as pseudoscience such as those on "Simulated Reality" or "Simulation Hypothesis" as these are not testable in any conceivable form and are more akin to solipsism. Theories and papers going under the name Quantised Inertia are making claims relevant to physics using math and physics concepts and formulas, therefore, even though its not yet experimentally proven, its not proven to be pseudoscience. (An analogy can be made to theories about aether). Just because someone makes a pop-science blog article claiming it is pseudoscience doesnt prove that it is. At least one scientific paper (by Michele Renda, https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.01589) has offered a skeptical analysis of Q.I, and does not conclude it is pseudoscience, but does claim it has flaws and suggests corrections. The paper concludes "such flaws, if they do not invalidate, at least will require a major rethinking of the whole theory". This doesnt claim Q.I is pseudoscience but does offer a skeptics criticism. Even if the theory is disproven, there is no need to delete, as other theories that are disproven (such as the aether) have historical value. My suggestion is that this article can be renamed to "Quantised Inertia Hypothesis". -Skywalker8 . talk 18:00, 12 June 2021 (EST)

The paper you mention is an ArXiv preprint which has not been published in a journal, and is therefore irrelevant for notability, see WP:PREPRINTS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, as the arXiv entry shows the paper has been published in the Monthly Notices of the Astronomical Society and is just fine. Skywalker8, pseudoscience isn't the issue. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on topics which are pseudoscience. There just needs to be enough reliable independent coverage and this one doesn't yet have it. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, they should have directly linked to the journal article though to make that clear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The journal article is subscription only. Most physics and astronomy articles are posted at arXiv first - its been a tradition for a long time and gives a nice way of reading articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete There simply isn't enough coverage here for a neutral scientific article. The fact that the creator of the theory is looking to Wikipedia for validation of his theory suggests to me that it isn't notable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Ultimately it's too new of a theory with a couple of scientists exploring it, a a couple of skeptics publishing rebuttals. Once the body of literature expands, then we can create a neutral article.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended content (incl. abuse) ——Serial 16:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After being blocked for over 70 hours for constructively pointing out my meanings I am back again. Here we have everything from people not knowing or bothering checking if articles on arXive are published in good journals or not, to professors and researchers. I really hope the final decision makers read the many comments on this page and the talk page rather than try to overrun the process based on own ego (I know better than peer reviewed published research etc. kind of view. should not be acceptable). Play with the thought for a moment that QI even is wrong in its perdition on EMDrive, something that is far from proven yet, but just assume so for a moment. Should one then delete the theory for such a reason? Not at all, many theories gives many predictions, they need also to be refined and possibly improved over time. Should we have rejected GR because it did not predict galaxy rotations, no instead one suggested the hypothesis of dark matter, that still only is a hypothesis and nothing more yet. So what is the point of deletion, to only have pages about facts? but then much of wikipedia need to go. For researchers it is naturally interesting to be able quickly look up summaries and key elements of theories that have been around for some time, no matter if they end up being wrong, correct, or correct on some points. Wikipedia is for me and many researcher a useful tool for initial research, here one can quickly get some short summary of many theories published in good journals in physics. The wikipedia editors that want to delete really need to think of why they want to delete. It is strange when editors that have focused on argument of pseudoscience which there is little or no reliable sources behind, suddenly have switched to argument about notability. So perhaps my arguments had some impact after all. There are many pages on wikipedia with less reason for notability I think. Block me or not again, call my view disruptive editing. Perhaps now that the page is almost destroyed should be deleted, but better is to re-build it. I will be Back!! (no matter if you like it or not). Adjos Amigos! ChrisCalif (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Star Mississippi: wasn't this guy supposed to be blocked until after the AfD closed? You know, so that they couldn't just come back and post walls of obstructive, bad faith text and cast aspersions?! Like they, actually, just have?! ——Serial 16:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The AfD was supposed to be closed by now; it's in the active queue for reviewing by an admin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanking you Ritchie333. And for your most recent logged actions. ——Serial 16:19, 15 June 2021 (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.