Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absement

:{{la|Absement}} ([{{fullurl:Absement|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absement}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

WP:Notability. While the author removed a PROD, alluding to significant mention in the "real world", even the references he added all point to it being used in exactly one context: the physics of the hydraulophone. The term may have been coined solely for use with that one instrument, the notability of which I'm unfamiliar with. Can others please give an assessment? —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as {{tl|Prod}}er. Not used in the "real world". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not an alien dictionary  Chzz  ►  16:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• This is a tough one. I was able to find some mentions and discussions of this on the internet, but precious few. Google books and scholar were little help, succumbing to many false positives such as the misspelling "self-absement". I [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1180639.1180751 found] one reliable source in Scholar, and the word is used in the context of the hydraulophone, as the nominator mentions. It seems to me that if this is a notable concept in physics, there would be a lot more published on it. To keep this article, I would like to see multiple reliable sources verifying that this is indeed a notable concept included in a wide variety of scholarly discussions. Without that verification, we are flirting with a lot of problems: original research, non-notability, being a neologism, even possibly being something made up recently. I recommend deleting this for now. Re-creation is always possible when proper sources are available. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep it is being taught in hundreds of schools now, and integrating displacement is as fundamental as differentiating it. Absement, displacement, and velocity are perhaps more fundamental than higher derivatives like jerk and jounce, e.g. why not also delete jerk and jounce?Glogger (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• I wouldn't say absement is as fundamental as velocity when velocity is a ubiquitous characteristic in physics while absement seems to have one sole application, to the mechanics of what I think is a rather obscure instrument. Regarding jerk and jounce, see WP:Other stuff exists.—Largo Plazo (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2009 (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.