Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crackle (physics) (3rd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. There is a clear consensus that these pages should not be kept but that the info should remain somewhere, I'm not seeing a consensus as to where though. I hope to see this discussion continue on the relevant talk pages to determine the best merge/redirect destination. J04n(talk page) 14:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Crackle (physics)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a neologism that practically has no use in physics other than for humor. This is the second time this article has been recreated after an AfD, perhaps it should be SALTed. AfDs for this article: 

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

ANDROS1337 TALK 02:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * delete as per previous discussions. Nothing has changed to improve these articles since, and there is no evidence that they have any serious application. Seyasirt (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment In addition to the two academic sources referenced in the two articles, here are some more sources using these concepts:
 * Transformation of 4-D dynamical systems to hyperjerk form by Zeraoulia Elhadj and J. C. Sprott
 * --Mark viking (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Transformation of 4-D dynamical systems to hyperjerk form by Zeraoulia Elhadj and J. C. Sprott
 * --Mark viking (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Transformation of 4-D dynamical systems to hyperjerk form by Zeraoulia Elhadj and J. C. Sprott
 * --Mark viking (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * --Mark viking (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge both articles to Jounce, or possibly Snap, Crackle and Pop. Lots of notable physics terms are jokes: quark, strange, charm, barn, qubit, anyon, ... the question is whether these terms are in use. The 8 sources above show that both crackle and pop are used across the fields of physics, human motion, control theory, and finance. None of the mentions are in enough depth to justify standalone articles, but both are verifiable across multiple independent reliable sources. Our policy is to WP:PRESERVE verifiable content when we can, and in this case merge is an obvious alternative to deletion. As the next derivatives in the series beyond jounce/snap, it makes sense to put in a section with their definitions and a few examples of use in that article--in fact they are already mentioned there. --Mark viking (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - This discussion was not created with the right template and was never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time.   For future nominations, please fully follow the procedure at WP:AFDHOWTO. -- Finngall   talk  01:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 15:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge both to Snap, Crackle and Pop, as per . Legit terms that are in use; not enough material to support separate articles but the formulae and some notes about application would be nice to have in the above article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * amended, see below -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect both to Snap, Crackle and Pop. On the merits: I see no material worth keeping, as the target article already says all that is to be said. I hope none is seriously suggesting to put 5+ lines of (trivial) equations into an article about cereal elves.
 * On the form, the nominating statement is strongly implying something that is false. The former AfDs for crackle were one NC and one redirect to displacement (vector), and the AfD for pop was NC. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge a brief definition of all of these terms to Glossary of physics. Snap, Crackle and Pop is the wrong place because it is about breakfast cereal mascots, not physics.  Sandstein   07:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also AfD-ed the mascots: Articles for deletion/Snap, Crackle and Pop.  Sandstein   07:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Glossary of physics seems like a good location for the definition, and yes, better than the muesli. But that page is seriously underlinked (i.e., there's little chance a reader would ever end up there). So maybe combine this with either a redirect, or a disambiguation if the cereal stays.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge strong, all of Pop (physics), Crackle (physics), Jounce/(Snap (physics)) into a new section in Kinematics which should also refer to Jerk (physics). And replace with redirects.  If this is this AfD's outcome ping me and I am happy to do it do it (but closer please let me copy the content to do so before actual delete occurring).  Aoziwe (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will also pull in the references above as appropriate and develop a consistent section pulling the whole series together. Aoziwe (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect perhaps if there's still questionability regarding the current contents, anything can be mentioned there if needed but I'm still not seeing the full convincing of keeping as its own. SwisterTwister   talk  20:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge all three into one article. The concepts of snap, crackle, and pop in the physics context should be covered, but the current collection of pop (physics), jounce, snap (physics), and crackle (physics) is a silly way to organize them.  And the articles are badly written too; a massive display of differential equations doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the concepts.  I would merge all three of those into a common article, say higher-order position derivatives, which discusses all of them in a coherent way, and leaves out (or, at least, reduces) the equation carpet-bomb.  And, some sort of navigation aids, connecting these with the Snap, Crackle and Pop  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Or, as suggests above, merge them into a unified discussion in a section of  Kinematics.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge either per Aoziew or RoySmith. Just because they are facetious does not meant that they are unencyclopedic. They should however, be covered in one place (wherever that may be) and have these individual pages redirect there. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if we have six articles rather then two (non of them a textbook), it exactly shows that the term is not widespread. Physics is a, well, sufficiently developed field, and established concepts are cited in thousands, at least in hundreds.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to somewhere in the Wikiverse. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * . Could you clarify what you mean by Wikiverse?  Do you mean, Merge them into some other article on wikipedia, or do you mean, Transwiki them into some other wiki outside of wikipedia?  Not trying to influence your opinion, just get more clarity around what you intended.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2016 (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.