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. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 21:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tug (physics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term "tug" seems to be a neologism / joke term. The source of the term seems to be the FAQ linked to in the Wikipedia article (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/jerk.html). It's mentioned in a self-published article on arxiv, but that article references the same FAQ and doesn't seem to use the term except in passing. IHateChoosingUsernames (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - no evidence of acceptance of the neologism. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)". הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fine with a general article or merging it with the article on momentum, but there is still the problem of references/verifiability. I would think that if tug (or yank) had practical use, the names would be standardized and it would be easier to find a source. IHateChoosingUsernames (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I do not see any notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The source says it all: "Needless to say, none of these are in any kind of standards, yet. We just made them up on usenet."TR 13:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. A made up term on USENET is not criteria for acceptance as an article on Wikipedia. Currently this term is not notable as it is not a topic of reliable sources. It is pretty much a neologism. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per WP:CRYSTAL -- not yet notable. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Neither the term nor the concept appears to be in widespread use, in the physics community or elsewhere. A Google search for (tug "third derivative") produces 3,040 results; by comparison, an analogous search for (force "second derivative") produces 327,000 results. The results of the "force" search ran to textbooks and serious-looking tutorial websites; the results of the "tug" search ran much more to blogs, wikis, and trivia compilations. A Google Books search for (tug "third derivative") produced a few hits, but the phrase "tug-of-war" occurred very early in the search results. The first result, Reza N. Jazar's Advanced Dynamics: Rigid Body, Multibody, and Aerospace Applications, includes "tug" in a list of derivatives going up to d^9 P/dt^9, which is downright absurd; at the end of this list, Jazar notes "None of these names are [sic] standard." Ammodramus (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.