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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:11, 10 March 2024

Inertialess drive

AfDs for this article:

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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Spaceflight. _{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]
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]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 *::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? [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 *::Alright, so I was able to access ''[[Of Worlds Beyond]]'' via the [[Internet Archive]]. The relevant passage on [https://archive.org/details/ofworldsbeyond0000lloy/page/84/mode/2up?q=bigelow page 84] is {{tq|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. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
+*:::>   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.
+*:::&nbsp;
+*:::&nbsp;
+*:::>  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.
+*:::—[[User:FlashSheridan|FlashSheridan]] ([[User talk:FlashSheridan|talk]]) 22:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * '''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. [[User:Shooterwalker|Shooterwalker]] ([[User talk:Shooterwalker|talk]]) 20:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)