Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecnac (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. --Coredesat 03:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lecnac

Lecnac (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I have nominated this article for deletion, since there appears to have been no change in the circumstances described in the previous nomination 3 years ago in terms of notability. I would argue that the term is not notable (outside of a single mathematical text) and by its very nature is not verifiable. Notably the article has been tagged as needing sources for over a year, to no avail. I can find no evidence that the term is in common use (despite being a teacher in Worthing, where the term was supposedly coined) and being familiar with the Mathsphere products. I notice, too, that many of the arguments for keeping in the previous discussion were invited by non-users. Tafkam 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, fails WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing found in Google Books, Google Scholar, or Google News Archive searches. Cute term but if there were a real need for it, it would be in more widespread use. --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, The article claims it is used by one small set of teachers. Hardly sounds encyclopedic. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dhartung. Insufficient evidence of notability. Jakew 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a badly written non-notable article that probably isn't true. — Wenli ^(contribs) 02:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced and non-notable. Gandalf61 10:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even the rationale given for coining this neologism is flawed. We can ""lecnac" a fraction by multiplying through by (¹/₃) / (¹/₃), for instance – and that gives the same result as "cancellation". DavidCBryant 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per DHartung, above. It may be in widespread use, but it is unsourced and appears to be unsourceable. Consider keeping only if evidence of third-party sources is produced. -- Dominus 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable at best. Paul August ☎ 04:00, 25 August 2007 (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.