Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notae Elegantissimae


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Notae Elegantissimae

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article about an alternative number system that claims to be "commonly used", and yet the only reference to the system is this page at archimedes-lab.org, the reliability of which cannot be ascertained (it appears to be a blog run by a couple of writers). All other sources on give in the article are mirrors, copies, or direct translations of the original archimedes-lab page. Outside of this original reference, there appears to be no usage (common or otherwise) of this numbering system. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article's subject is verifiable and at the same time it is not original research. And it is clearly notable because a Google search for "Notae Elegantissimae" produces thousands of relevant results. Since it is not a biography, the WP:BLP1E criterion does not apply here. And lastly the article has just been created. It would be better to improve the article (by finding and adding more sources) instead of deleting it. (And for this article, Google may not the best place to search for reliable sources. One should also look into books and libraries perhaps).     Vintelok (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, a Google search for "Notae Elegantissimae" produces exactly 172 results, and the 20 or so that I actually checked were all mirrors or verbatim translations (including the identical graphics) of the original page from archimedes-lab. It would be difficult to improve this article based on the sources, since there are none.   WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * * It would be difficult to improve this article based on the sources, since there are none!! If one can't find sources in Google, then one should look elsewhere: Books, Libraries, JSTOR, scientific papers etc. For the next few days, I will search for more sources. If even then more sources can't be found, then I will make that known here. Vintelok (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Vintelok is free to look for those sources. Wikipedia guidelines put the burden on the author to verify their articles.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment For the record:
 * Google scholar: 0 hits
 * JSTOR: 0 hits
 * Google books: 2 hits, both books written in Latin in which the phrase notae elegantissimae appears with its expected meaning of "most elegant notes".
 * Vintelok is free to find any other sources he might. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 18:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per WP:NFT. All the references appear to be both unreliable and copied from each other. Some of the claims in the article (particularly the one saying this is "commonly used" appear to be quite dubious. No reliable sources for this can be found; the two hits for this phrase in Google books appear to be unrelated, stemming from the fact that "notae elegantissimae" is a natural turn of phrase when writing in Latin. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is not demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete per David Eppstein. -- 202.124.74.232 (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - None of the sources appear to meet WP:RS, claims of popularity appear to be a hoax. DreamGuy (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. May be neologism.Bellstarr (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2012 (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.