Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Procept


 * 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 keep. Tone 08:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Procept

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a notable neologism. No secondary sources. Minimal use in scholarly literature. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 22:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 22:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 22:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although this may seem a vague neologism to those of us who (like me) are not scholars of mathematics education, there appear to be enough sources beyond the original Gray & Tall work (examples: "Abstraction and consolidation of the limit procept by means of instrumented schemes: the complementary role of three different frameworks", Kidron, 2008, ; "Mathematical Proof as Formal Procept in Advanced Mathematical Thinking", Chin, 2003, ; "A secondary school student's understanding of the concept of function-A case study", Sajka, 2003, ; "Constructing inferential concepts through bootstrap and randomization-test simulations: A case study", Pfannkuch & Budgett, 2014, ; "Developing versatility in mathematical thinking", Thomas, ). So I think this passes the low bar (for scholarly concepts) of having multiple in-depth independent sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as argued, I think we have enough to pass the wiki-notability line. (It looks like Gray and Tall actually introduced the term in 1992, not 1994 .) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2021 (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.