Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inertialess drive (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect‎ to Space travel in science fiction#Means of travel. At least until the draft is improved to a point where there is consensus among interested editors to move it back to mainspace. Sandstein 17:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inertialess drive[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Inertialess drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a pure piece of WP:OR, poorly sourced to novels, short stories, games and like. While it is plausible the topic could be notable, given the ORish state of this, nothing here is rescuable; 80% of the article is a plot summary for Lensman series, and the remainder 20% is unsourced OR in the WP:IPC-failing style of "this term also appears in the following random works". WP:TNT treatment is advised, although WP:ATD-R allows for a less drastic solution of redirecting this to Space travel in science fiction where the term is mentioned. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m obviously biased, since I was the first contributor, but “a pure piece of WP:OR, poorly sourced” is clearly incorrect: The first two footnotes are uncontroversially secondary research, and there are nine other footnotes, which I think is above average for a Wikipedia article of this length. I can’t speak to the quality of citations by other contributors, but would welcome specific corrections.
—FlashSheridan (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my surprise, there seem to be 368 pages that link to it (a number which could perhaps use some filtering); that’s a lot of red links to fix.
—FlashSheridan (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 325 pages that transclude Template:Science fiction, which includes a link to inertialess drive, so the numbers for links to the latter are almost certainly heavily inflated by that (some pages may of course transclude the template and include a separate link to this article). TompaDompa (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FlashSheridan, could you perhaps elaborate upon what you are referring to when you speak of secondary research here? I am a bit confused by the article itself in terms of what's in-universe and what's real-world. TompaDompa (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > could you perhaps elaborate upon what you are referring to when you speak of secondary research here?
    Citations to “The Epic of Space,” page 84, in Of Worlds Beyond, 1947, and to Samuel Lawrence Bigelow’s Theoretical and Physical Chemistry. Of Worlds Beyond was quite important in the intellectual history of early science fiction, and I dare say most readers have been puzzled by Dr Smith’s reference.
     
     
    > I am a bit confused by the article itself in terms of what's in-universe and what's real-world.
    That’s fair criticism, and I’d be happy to fix it.
    — FlashSheridan (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I have that right, the article cites E. E. Smith's essay from Of Worlds Beyond (1947) to verify that Samuel Lawrence Bigelow's Theoretical and Physical Chemistry (1912) was the first mention of an inertialess drive? And this is real-world background information for what follows, which is all in-universe? TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, so I was able to access Of Worlds Beyond via the Internet Archive. The relevant passage on page 84 is I would not use mathematically impossible mechanics, such as that too-often-revived monstrosity of a second satellite hiding eternally from Earth behind the moon. Since the inertia of matter made it impossible for even atomic energy to accelerate a space-ship to the velocity I had to have, I would have to do away with inertia. Was there any mathematical or philosophical possibility, however slight, that matter could exist without inertia? There was—I finally found it in no less an authority than Bigelow (Theoretical Chemistry—Fundamentals). Einstein's Theory of course denies that matter can attain such velocities, but that did not bother me at all. It is still a theory—velocities greater than that of light are not absolutely mathematically impossible. That is enough for me. In fact, the more highly improbable a concept is—short of being contrary to mathematics whose fundamental operations involve no neglect of infinitesimals—the better I like it. So Smith does not actually say that Bigelow was the first one to propose inertialess travel, only that that's where he (Smith) got the idea from. I hardly think we can call this secondary research, contrary to your assertion that it is uncontroversially so. We're citing Smith about where Smith got inspiration for a story Smith wrote, in a passage describing that story by Smith. Combine this with the WP:Writing about fiction issues present here and the fact that the article otherwise relies entirely on the primary literature (i.e. the works of fiction themselves), and I think the description of the article in the nomination is rather apt. TompaDompa (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > So Smith does not actually say that Bigelow was the first one to propose inertialess travel, only that that's where he (Smith) got the idea from.
    Fair point; the absence of contrary evidence is of course not conclusive, though for an intellectual history it is rather suggestive. Happy to make the correction.
     
     
    > We're citing Smith about where Smith got inspiration for a story Smith wrote, in a passage describing that story by Smith.
    Yes, in one of the key early books on the intellectual history of science fiction (admittedly rather a recondite area). Citing that didn’t seem like original research to me.
    —FlashSheridan (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not original research, but getting it straight from the horse's mouth is not exactly secondary research either, now is it? This entire article relies on WP:Primary sources, in violation of policy. TompaDompa (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was published in a volume edited by someone else, as close as existed at the time to a scholarly publication on the subject. (One of the few available, in my experience, in ordinary bookshops, even decades later.) As I recall (from the few times I’ve done it myself), this would have allowed Dr Smith himself to cite it, so it seems odd for you to forbid someone else to rely on it.
    —FlashSheridan (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You may think it odd, but remember that there are significant differences between Wikipedia and scholarly sources. Scholarly sources encourage original thought, while WP:Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Scholarly sources largely prefer primary sources, while Wikipedia largely prefers secondary sources. And so on. Mind you that the only sentence in the entire article that (1) is referenced (2) to something other than a work of fiction is The possibility of inertialess travel was first suggested in Theoretical and Physical Chemistry, published in 1912 by the Tellurian chemist Samuel Lawrence Bigelow, an alumnus of Harvard.—and the sources there are Of Worlds Beyond (discussed above; I'll also note for the record that the note Piotrus alludes to below reads, in its entirety, "The Epic of Space," page 84, in Of Worlds Beyond, 1947. Dr. Smith gives the title as Theoretical Chemistry–Fundamentals, and provides only a last name. Given the other errors in “The Epic of Space,” e.g., “Trweel” for “Tweel” on page 80, the misspelling of “Constantinescu” on page 84, and, arguably, E. E. Evan's analysis of Triplanetary on page 87, the error does not seem implausible.), a library entry to verify the year of publication for Theoretical and Physical Chemistry, and a webpage that appears to get its information from Ancestry.com (at least, the webpage states at the bottom that RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community.), a WP:Generally unreliable source per WP:ANCESTRY.COM, to verify that Bigelow went to Harvard. The rest either lacks any kind of source at all or relies improperly on the works of fiction themselves. TompaDompa (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Space travel in science fiction where this is covered with better sources. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to justify a split, here. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


> Space travel in science fiction where this is covered with better sources.
No, that article doesn’t mention either Of Worlds Beyond or Theoretical and Physical Chemistry.
—FlashSheridan (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Key words: "better sources". As opposed to: WP:OR. PS. TompaDompa already explained it in detail above. It is quite possible we can add a sentene or two to the "Space travel..." article, based on secondary sources. And for the record, there will be no red links to fix - per the nom, there should be no hard deletion, just redirection (due to this failing WP:GNG, in particular, SIGCOV requirement). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And one more reply: it does not - and why should it? Those works are not mentioned in the nominated article outside a confusing footnote. And that footnote is very ORish, ex. "Given the other errors in...". Who says there were errors, and how is this relevant to the article? I am sorry, but I did say this is a "mess" and it needs a WP:TNT treatment, and I stand by this assessment. What was passable in 2006 is very much not so in 2024. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm very new here, so I'm not sure my opinion matters, and I'm probably going to make a mess out of the formatting expectations for this process because yikes. There do seem to be some sources that discuss this as a trope with value to the craft of science-fiction storytelling. I found a book that confirms Triplanetary as the first use and describes the trope as a means to end-run physics and allow galactic-scale storytelling (Gunn, James. Alternate Worlds: The Illustrated History of Science Fiction (3rd ed.). McFarland. p. 134. ISBN 978-1-4766-7353-0.). Paul Gilster is a fairly respected space technology writer who also describes the fictional history of the concept, including precursors to Triplanetary. and it's real-world futurist applications or likely, lack thereof (Gilster, Paul (2004). Centauri Dreams: Imagining and Planning Interstellar Exploration. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4419-1818-5.). I don't have access to this, but Google suggests some relevancy. There's also a lot of ufology nonsense about the topic, which I'm sure isn't enough to actually make a topic a thing but is... maybe worth noting in an article with wider context? It's a fictional element either way, after all. Lubal (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Welcome to Wikipedia in general and WP:Articles for deletion in particular. Being new in no way makes your input less valid/relevant/important. I took a look at those sources. Gunn makes a rather brief mention of inertialess drives on pp. 134–135. I would characterize that as a passing mention falling short of WP:Significant coverage of the topic (Gunn doesn't discuss the concept, he merely mentions it in the context of Smith's fiction). Gilster similarly briefly mentions inertialess drives on pp. 173–174. When it comes to your last source, searching for "inertialess" on Google Books gives me no results. So it does not appear to me that those sources would be a sufficient foundation for an article on this topic, though they may be useful for other articles on related topics. TompaDompa (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Re: That third source. That's... interesting, because Google gave me this snippet: "Some early SF writers posited a hypothetical “inertialess drive”, which was capable of reducing a spacecraft’s mass to zero and hence neutralizing its resistance to acceleration. Such..." No idea as to further context; like I said, I don't have access to that one. And I certainly don't understand how Google handles searching/snippeting of otherwise "unavailable" text. Otherwise, is there a bright-line rule on what constitutes passing mention? Gilster, in particular, seems to give the topic a couple of paragraphs of attention in the context of fictional elements that some people hope might not be completely impossible (that cited footnote from Arthur C. Clarke might also be worth scaring up). On the other hand, the whole "ZPF might let us delete inertia" thing, Clarke included, is about six inches short of total nonsense, so while I think this is more than a "passing mention," I also don't think it's a source I'd want to hang my hat on. Lubal (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That is indeed peculiar, though Google is of course known to be fickle at times. Alright: looking into it a bit more (i.e. checking a PDF of the book instead of the Google Books page), it turns out that the book says Some early SF writers posited a hypothetical "inertialess drive", which was capable of reducing a spacecraft's mass to zero and hence neutralizing its resistance to acceleration. Such drives appear in the novel Triplanetary by E. E. Smith, originally serialized in Amazing Stories in 1934, and in Kenneth Robeson's "The Secret in the Sky" from the May 1935 issue of Doc Savage magazine. These early treatments of inertialess drives assume that nullifying an object's mass would make it easier to accelerate and manoeuvre. That would be true if the inertial mass was reduced substantially, but not all the way to zero. on page 112 (annoyingly, Google lets me preview page 111 and 113, but not 112...). This, however, seems to be the only mention in the book.
      As to your question about whether there is a bright-line rule: not really, it comes down to editorial judgment. To quote myself from a 2021 AfD discussion:

      what WP:SIGCOV says is "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There does not exist any general consensus about where to draw the line, so we judge it case-by-case. Some editors focus on length of coverage; a cut-off of WP:One hundred words has been suggested. Some editors focus on breadth of coverage. Some editors focus on depth of coverage.

      A pretty good starting point, in my opinion, is the following passage from WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. TompaDompa (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. Which is why we ma want to consdier if we could add a short paragraph based on these sources to Space travel... ? It is a Good Article, and we cannot bloat it with fancrufty plot description and ORish examples, but the sources we found likely lend themselves to a sentence or two. What do you think? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure if it changes anything. I agree that most of the sources discussing this topic don't individually have a lot to say about it, but there are quite a few sources that say something, and they aren't saying the same thing. I took a shot at workshopping what this might look like if we were going to rewrite it entirely and then keep it. It's at User:Lubal/Inertialess. Separately, there's another article at inertia negation that probably more or less overlaps this topic and is arguably even worse. That one might need to be redirected or deleted, too. Lubal (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Lubal I've AfD the terrible article you reported; as for your rewrite, it looks quite solid although right now I do not have time to spot check the sources. I wonder what User:TompaDompa will say? Side note: if the current article is deleted and then you add your version, it might be eligible for DYK. Otherwise, if we replace the content now, it would not, I think. Which does not make sense, IMHO, but rules are rules. Perhaps I misunderstand them - ping @BlueMoonset for a comment on this? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Piotrus, it's unlikely that an article that's deleted and recreated in short succession will be considered eligible for DYK. Especially since any recreation would likely include the pre-deletion history. Whatever is ultimately done, don't include DYK in your calculus unless the article ends up a 15K+ prose character monster. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          @BlueMoonset I see. That's unfortunate, seems to me like it is a topic to discyss at DYK. What Lubal did is to effectively write a new article; why shouldn't his work be recognized by the DYK community? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm unsure if I'll have time to check Lubal's draft at User:Lubal/Inertialess; I'll get back to you if and when I do. As a note to the closer, it may be worth relisting this discussion specifically to give editors time to reach consensus on whether the draft should replace the old version. TompaDompa (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        PS. Same author as the negation, but this might be notable. Still looks bad enough to warrant WP:TNT: Inertia damper. Any thoughts on what to do with that one? AfD, or is it passable? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Space travel in science fiction per Shooterwalker. Secondary sources to establish notability are very thin. What can be properly sourced is probably worth a paragraph in a broader article rather than it's own article. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eluchil404 What do you think about replacing it with User:Lubal/Inertialess? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. That draft is a significant improvement. I am essentially neutral as to whether it works better as a separate article or a section in the broader topic. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Space travel in science fiction#Means of travel. After seeing the draft article, I'm still not really convinced that it needs to be separate and not just part of the broader article on space travel. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inertialess_drive_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1214227527"