Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absition


 * 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 all except absition. All the articles listed here, with the exception of Absition, are found to not be notable. As to the proper naming of Absition, this is not the forum for such activities, please be WP:BOLD if you wish to see the name changed, or discuss it on the article's talk page. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 15:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Absition

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable neologism. Seems to have been made up by Steve Mann a couple of years ago, but hasn't entered into any kind of common usage. Kolbasz (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
 * Kolbasz (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Kolbasz (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Kolbasz (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Kolbasz (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete all doesn't appear to have attained notability yet. Seems to only be used in the odd blog or forum. Another option would be to move them to draft. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete all I have managed to trace this to a single blog where the "about" page does not give an actual name but says: "I am a solitary chronicler and student of Theoretical Physics, Mathematics and Science in the Cyberspace". All of the articles are by the same editor; I have no idea their connection to the blog author, but none of this is verifiable in a reliable source. Note that I can find occasional uses of the term in scholarly articles, but not in the sense meant here. Scholar search. Some of the uses are actually OCR errors.  LaMona (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep absition, Delete the others I think the others should definitely be deleted because they have no physical manifestation, while absition does. Even if not very much on it exists, absition is still closely related to conventional physics. The articles for position/displacement, velocity, and acceleration themselves are relatively short and lacking in references. I want to expand this article with more information and references, possibly from textbooks. JoshBM16 (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: clarity reqd for absition Spartaz Humbug! 00:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename absition to absement, delete the others. Absition at least describes an application and according to the table below we have 3 articles on absement fulfilling WP:GNG criteria (although not many more such sources exist). The others (absity...) are just definitions without suggesting why such quantity should be considered. Petr Matas 23:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC). Update: Petr Matas 20:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 00:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Keep but rename absition to absement, and delete the others (after including their relevant material in the absement article). There are numerous recent scientific and academic references to absement in credible IEEE, ACM, etc., conferences and journal articles, and some of these have now been added as references to the Absition article. For example, important scientific discoveries based on absement have been made in mechanical and electrical modeling and systems. New absement-based concepts include "strain absement", the time-integral of strain, [Bratland etal. 2015] which provides a new way of modeling the hysteretic response of springs, and considering periodicity in terms of absement as a function of displacement. Jeltsema 2012 and Pei 2015 provide extensive contributions to absement-based modeling of electric circuits. Glogger (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all. These appear to be concepts in physics that have not been widely recognized and may have appeared in only a few articles so far. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Numerous? After stripping away OCR errors and typos ("abasement"), I can find only two non-Mann articles on Scholar using the word. Not nearly enough for notability. Kolbasz (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:GNG says that to qualify for a standalone article, we must have references, which simultaneously fulfill three criteria. Here are our sources with their scoring with respect to the criteria: Petr Matas 19:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * independent of each other, or of the original proponent of the article (Roybook), or of the earliest article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glogger (talk • contribs)
 * One of the latter two options. I would regard Mann as the primary source, and secondary sources unaffiliated with him as independent. Petr Matas 20:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe could fill in the "Significant coverage" column? Petr Matas 19:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Bell has a tick in "significant coverage" despite not using the term at all? Kolbasz (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Also setting Mann, Janzen (coauthor of Mann etal. 2006), and Harbourfront (about hydraulophone) as not independent. Petr Matas 21:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep the article but consolidate all material on the time-integral of displacement. If we deleted this article, then by logic we'd also have to delete the articles on velocity, acceleration, and jerk (physics), which are other taxonomically equivalent kinematic quantities (derivatives and integrals of displacement). If someone can find a different page on "time-integral of displacement" then we can move to that one. Otherwise, this is it. --Rianoj 23:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete for lacking WP:Notability. Cited material can be moved to hydraulophone page. Ma7ged (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the hydraulophone application could be moved to Hydraulophone, but the physical concept of displacement integral should be described in an article on motion. Nobody is going to look for it in Hydraulophone. Petr Matas 19:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are there Wikipedia articles for EACH OF Snap, Crackle, and Pop (4th, 5th, and 6th derivates)? For example, it seems there's just one reference in the Crackle article, and it appears not to be a peer-reviewed journal or conference article: Christopher Richard (1990). Experiments in high-performance nonlinear and adaptive control of a two-link, flexible-drive-train manipulator. Stanford University. p. 81. Retrieved 8 November 2015. Jerk is the technical term for the third derivative of position- snap, crackle, and pop correspond to the fourth, fifth, and sixth derivatives of position. If we can go that high in derivatives (by that far up, there's mostly noise, and very little signal, e.g. if we think in terms of power spectrum), but can't have integrals of position (which tend to have good signal integrity), we seem to have a one-sided half-truth here.99.231.161.92 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to get them to AfD as well if they're not notable. Kolbasz (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

'''Keep this article. Theory preludes application.''' This article well documents some of the research on integral kinematics. It is important to keep this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesuperhorse (talk • contribs) 00:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC) — Thesuperhorse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 15:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we opt to keep topics like the Derivative of Displacement, or Velocity, then we must keep the Integral of Displacement, or Absition (Absement). Kinematics is in this context an incomplete half-truth if we only consider distance and its derivatives.  The completeness and integrity of kinematics requires we also consider distance and its integrals: both sides, with distance in the middle!.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magogplums (talk • contribs) 03:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)  — Magogplums (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP doesn't usually concern itself with a "fairness" between integrals and derivatives of kinematic concepts. If notable sources continue their discrimination against integrals, the injustice shouldn't be redressed here. Magedq (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Keep this article. It is an important contribution to fundamental physics and the design of any technology that displaces a fluid" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absement (talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC) — Absement (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at AfD (UTC).
 * Keep. Citations for Integral of distance (Absement, Absition) are gradually increasing in frequency. New concepts are typically slow to be cited but build up over time as was the case historically with the derivatives of displacement (velocity, acceleration, etc). The absence of citations for new concepts is in itself is no cause for their removal. Integrals of displacement should fundamentally be no less meaningful and impactful over time than the derivatives of displacement. Potshs (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC) — Potshs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at AfD (UTC).
 * Comment: We're up to 4 SPAs now. Anyone able to figure out where they're all coming from? Kolbasz (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Term inventor asks his students to contribute to saving "his" articles. Note, many non-SPAs here also edit only Mann-lab articles. Comment46 (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, even as a supporter of keeping the article it's annoying. I think consensus should defitely give little (or no) weight to what the SPAs and Mann-ed (get it) accounts. JoshBM16 (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Does not fit any reason for deletion, plus is cited in scholarly articles, clearly real scientific contribution.Petelogger (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC) — Petelogger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.