Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop (motion)


 * 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. Given that we have editors suggesting all four common outcomes here, I am closing this as no consensus, but will of course point out that BOLDLY merging and redirecting are editing issues, and not for AfD. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Pop (motion)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Is this used in the real world at any regular basis?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Obviously bogus. Snap-crackle-and-pop? Imaginatorium (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This was closed by after speedy-deleting it as a hoax. It's actually not a hoax and not bogus; it's just a lame physics joke. Note we also have an article at jounce, which is another name for snap. (This article appears to duplicate some of that one's content.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I stand corrected on this, and I thank Opabinia regalis for knowing the truth about this whimsical physics naming tradition. (So should we also have an article on Crackle (motion)?) --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to jounce. Oops, I got distracted leaving you a note and making sure I hadn't screwed up the templates, and forgot the part where you actually comment on the article. Hrm. I don't think we need separate pages for each of these - they'd just be 'the nth derivative...' dicdefs. I think very selectively merging this article to jounce, where this terminology is already mentioned, is the best approach. Snap (motion) and crackle (motion) can be redirects, though unlikely search terms I'm sure. To answer the original question, snap does get used on occasion, but I've never seen an un-self-conscious usage of crackle or pop. And fly geneticists win at science when it comes to goofy names. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The FAA isn't bad at it either -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to jounce. I don't think the content merits merging. The one paper cited is primarily about jerk and snap. The content is largely duplicated from jounce. The equations add little, and anyone with sufficient mathematics/physics knowledge to understand the article will be able to derive them. Similarly I don't think we need merge the large part of the article that describes the weakness and lack of consensus about it all, which is in any case largely copied from jounce. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I would be fine with merge/redirect if someone with sufficient understanding of the concepts will undertake to do it. For one thing, it does appear to be rather duplicative of "jounce". For another, a redirect is much less likely than an article to elicit a "WTF?" response from non-physicists. Personally my favorite physics humor is the short version of the laws of thermodynamics. --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It may be a little silly, but it's physics, and it's real, and it's got references to back it up.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * delete The two references are basically asides, showing that cosmologists do have a sense of humor but failing to demonstrate that anyone really cares about this contrived bit of terminology; indeed, they both tend to imply the opposite. A paper showing some analysis of this way-out-there derivative is really what is needed to give this meaningful notability. Seyasirt (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2015 (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.