Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inertia damper

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 keep‎. Participants here don't seem to think TNT is called for. Article can be improved through editing, not deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inertia damper (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)

A very similar case to the about-to-be-deleted mess that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inertia negation. Mostly unreferenced OR, half of which is an unsourced list of "Real-world applications and devices". The only two footnotes are for the red-linked concept of a rotary damper (perhaps it is notable and should be split and stubbed?). I'll note that the concept of "Inertia damper" does have a few hundred hits on GScholar, so there may be a real science concept to be written about here, but what we have begs for WP:TNT, IMHO. Pinging participants of the aforementioned AfD: User:Lubal, User:Xxanthippe, User:Zxcvbnm, User:Shooterwalker, User:Johnjbarton, User:Rorshacma and User:DrowssapSMM. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:51, 18 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 Science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: and TNT per nom. DrowssapSMM 00:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see a problem here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep as nominator has not provided solid grounds for deletion. No evidence of a proper BEFORE was made, as nominator has not attempted to source check any of these "hundreds of scholar hits," and they also demand a TNT, which is cleanup and not something that needs to be brought to AfD. If this article needs a rewrite, it should be discussed on the article talk page. If the concept can be proven non-notable, then that is a different story. But the rationale above does not have me convinced that this article needs to be removed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I deleted a bunch of stuff that @Piotrus mentioned and added some refs to real stuff. The refs tend to use "inertial damper" or sometimes "inerter". I think a better resolution would be to convert this into Damper (engineering) and summarize the articles in damper. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Johnjbarton Thanks for trying to rescue it, it looks better. Note that inerter is a disambig that does not link here currently. Not sure to what degree this article here overlaps with Inerter (mechanical networks)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the repaired page seems reasonable as others have said. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:24, 19 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.