Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantriagdiag magic cube
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pantriagdiag magic cube (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)
Fails our notability guideline. Not a single reliable source could be found for this. No books mention this (the only one that does is a "book" by Betascript publishing which is a Wikipedia articles republisher), no news articles, and the web pages that mention this are either based on Wikipedia or unreliable. Searching for "Pantriagonal Diagonal magic cube" yields the same meagre results. Article is seven years old and has been tagged as unreferenced for over two years now. Fram (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm far from an expert on the subject of the article, however, I can say that I can find no reliable sources that discuss this concept. Pretty much the only places that even mention it are just mirrors of this wikipedia article. Not only does this fail to meet the GNG, this just reeks of Original Research. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 22:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No hits in Google scholar, no verifiable non-wiki hits in Google books (it gets four hits but two are wiki clones and two can't be searched), appears to fail WP:NEO. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No hits in Google scholar, no non-wiki hits in Google books, apparent WP:NEO and WP:OR. -- 202.124.74.50 (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if it is not OR, then it is a hoax. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2012 (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.