Talk:Planck acceleration

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Planck units
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Planck units

This page was proposed for deletion by XOR'easter (talk · contribs) in the past with the comment:
A trivial bit of dimensional analysis, and a term not actually used in the physics literature to a sufficient extent to merit a dedicated article (mostly a viXra topic more than anything else).
It was contested by Kvng (talk · contribs) on 2020-04-10 with the comment:
Triviality is not an uncontroversial reason to delete. Important enough to be covered at Planck_units#Derived_units.

Notability

A.R., the notability requirements of Wikipedia apply here. The content that you restored contains mostly information that is irrelevant to the topic, and the sources do not refer to "Planck acceleration". Where they refer to a limit of acceleration, it is a completely different quantity unrelated to Planck units. We can't even show that this is a scientifically accepted term. Show notability before creating an article when its notability has been contested, which it clearly has been. —Quondum 12:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe the topic is notable. First, it has been written about in established peer-reviewed publications; I've now included a reference to an additional paper (in the European Journal of Physics), out of respect for the concern you're expressing.

Second, it's a matter of simple logic: acceleration is a physical concept no less important than others. We have an article about standard gravity just as we have the metre and second. The Planck acceleration article is not about Planck jerk, Planck snap, Planck crackle or Planck pop, each of which indeed seems non-notable, being irrelevant to physical reality. Planck acceleration is a meaningful physical quantity, having applications in areas such as black hole physics, quantum gravity, and physics of the early universe. Certainly, we can and should continue improving the article by adding references and a more complex discussion, but even as it stands now, the article is both notable and well-supported. A.R. (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure to use the talk page before making any large changes to the article. Thank you! A.R. (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents - notable and sufficiently in use in peer-reviewed literature, based on quick scan of Scholar. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've studied this cluster of topics pretty darn intensely over the past weeks, and I can honestly say: no, it isn't. The appearances in Google Scholar are occasional mentions, passing awareness, unreviewed preprints, false positives (like "Fokker–Planck acceleration-transport code"), and viXra crap, including plenty of nonsense from Espen Gaarder Haug. XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]