Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normalforcelessness

:{{la|Normalforcelessness}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Normalforcelessness}})

This is a neologism; in my opinion a clumsy and pedantic one, but those of course are not grounds for deletion. What is grounds for deletion is lack of verifiability that the term is actually in widespread enough use to satisfy WP:NEO. Clicking on the "Findsources" links above will show no mention at all in News, or Books, or Scholar. The article cites three textbooks; I have only been able to check one of those (Fundamentals of Physics), but the term was not mentioned. The edition I checked was older than the one cited, but I also checked, without result, all the more modern physics textbooks in the same section of the University library where I found it.

Most of the few ordinary Ghits are Urban Dictionary, where the word has been since 2005, or WP mirrors. The others include an undated entry in a blog [http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:qtD1UI9aSzkJ:prettygoodphysics.wikispaces.com/file/view/Ideas%2Bon%2BHow%2Bto%2BTeach%2BWeight.doc+%22Normalforcelessness%22+-wikipedia&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk here] linking to Urban Dictionary and urging people to "start instituting the use of this word"; the article may be part of this campaign but, with no mention in Google Books or Google Scholar, it does not seem the campaign has got far. Urban Dictionary is not a convincing source; it is significant that Wiktionary, which requires solid attestation, does not have the word. Conclusion: delete per WP:NEO: "Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term" - there is not enough evidence that this word is in use, and it is not our business to help promote it. JohnCD (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Apparent weight. This awkward neologism is unlikely to catch on, but that article needs some tender love and care. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete On further reflection, only trivial material would go in any merge, and there is no particular need to keep around such an unusual redirect. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Apparent weight or Weightlessness. There are sources listed, but I cannot confirm that those sources do or don't use the term. It clearly does not deserve an article, but I am not wholly convinced it should be obliterated. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per above - we are not an Urban Dictionary. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The term does not appear at all in google scholar or google books, nor does it appear in Ebsco, Gale, or HW Wilson databases available to me. I was not able to locate the specific three books noted in the references section of the article, but none of the college-level physics texts to which I do have access list the term in their indexes or glossaries. I was able to find no indication that this is a term that is currently used within the field. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly the term is odd and the article can't stand on its own. Regarding merge - please do not look at refs, they are just a cover. All what is said in the article is trivia, which is already reflected on WP and which could be written by anyone who merely studied physics at school. Materialscientist (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I consulted my copy of Halliday and Resnick, and the term appears nowhere. This is pure original research. Skinwalker (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2009 (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.