Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yank (physics) (2nd 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 00:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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

The term appears to be a neologism. I have been unable to find a serious mention of the term. The first AfD mentioned three sources: an FAQ, a mailing list (the link has since gone dead), and an article on arxiv. However, the arxiv article is self-published and only mentions the term in passing. I have been able to find the term mentioned in only one published book. However, the book only mentions the term once and warns that it isn't standard. IHateChoosingUsernames (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IHateChoosingUsernames (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 3.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  00:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * delete - no evidence of acceptance of the neologism. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I would proceed with caution before passing judgement on this term; as force is to acceleration, so is yank to jerk (physics), a reasonably sourced article, and I imagine that whoever would use jerk would use yank. In any case, the concept itself seems to be a simple physics concept and needs an article under whatever name, and, if renamed, there should be a mention of this term. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename (to what?) and redirect - the concept is apparently used enough to have an article (unless we should create "general" articles such as "Higher-order time-derivatives of (physicists/mathematicians, please fill in the blank)". Note that I have found a textbook that lists several non-standard names for higher-order derivatives including yank and tug. הסרפד  (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the textbook I linked to above. If you notice, it mentions that "derivatives of the equation of motion are not much applied". Yank is not used elsewhere in the book (save for the glossary, where it's mentioned alongside terms like "zoor"). I did some research prior to creating the AfD and I was unable to find a source that mentions a use for the third derivative (or second, for that matter) of momentum. IHateChoosingUsernames (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops. I was sure you had linked to a book, but when rechecking I could not find the link. It must have been in my blind spot... Yet I still think there is enough currency of the term (search Google Scholar for "yank acceleration" [without quotes] and you will see what I mean) to warrant a redirect. The question is, what is the more formal name? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There isn't one. Both the book and the Usenet FAQ tell you that.  And the blank that you want filling in is Newton's Second Law of Motion.  Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. This seems to be a non-standard term and is, therefore, not widely used. It seems to be more like a proposed term. There really aren't any reliable sources for this term, and this includes a passing mention in a book. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. A Google Web search for ("yank" "derivative with respect") produced 6,230 results; for comparison, a search for ("acceleration" "derivative with respect") produced 758,000 results.  The results of the former search ran heavily to blogs, wikis, and trivia compilations.  The Jazar book, as mentioned, states that the terms for higher-order derivatives are non-standard; it lists names for derivatives all the way up to d^9 P/dt^9, which is downright absurd.  Ammodramus (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2013 (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.