Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overacceleration


 * 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. Reason: wrong term or term with wrong definition. However, this can be recreated with the accurate meaning of "overacceleration". Note: Special thanks to Abel Cavaşi for introducing me a new term. @pple complain 15:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Overacceleration

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is little more than a dictionary definition but, more importantly, I believe the definition it gives is wrong. It defines "overacceleration" as the rate of change of acceleration, i.e. the third derivative d3x/dt3 of position with respect to time. I cannot find any instance of the word being used in this sense; its normal use is to mean either acceleration exceeding some preset limit, so that, for instance, overacceleration sensors are used in vehicles to trigger airbags in a crash, or simply too much acceleration in discussions of, say, driving technique. Even correcting the definition, I don't think there is material for an article. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The usual engineering term is "jerk", I have never heard of overacceleration in that sense. Neither google define:, Chambers 20th, nor McGraw Hill Dictionary of Physics and Mathematics recognise it. Burn the witch. I should add that it is used as technical term in rotating machinery, to describe an excessive acceleration. Incidentally the users other contribs don't inpsire much confidence in his authority. Greg Locock (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Greg. The article appears both incorrect and possibly unecessary even if corrected. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * see jerk (no reflection) Greg Locock (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the term! Thank you for your observation. So, the article must be delete or corrected. --Abel Cavași (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. As per nomination. (FWIW, the term to which I was exposed for the third derivative is “moment of impulse”.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:24, 27 January 2008 (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.