Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grafting number

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) 14:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grafting number

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Sourced to a YouTube video and searching turns up nothing else so something someone made up one day for a video. Deprodded with the reason 'probably AfD is the best venue for this', which does not address the concerns of the proposed deletion but means, yes, it has to go through AfD now. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Book and scholar searches above show other meanings for the combination of the two words. No indication of notability. Even if the info in the article is correct it is just a dictionary definition, nothing about why the grafting numbers are related to anything else. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was surprised but book search found nothing (a whole lot of "grafting. Number..." hits). Shadowjams (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When I look at the page Grafting number, the words "this article's entry" in the deletion template look like a redlink (even though clicking on them brings me here). Is there something wrong with my browser, or do other people see the same thing? Jowa fan (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks OK to me but I've seen it before. The fix is to purge the [article] page; all that's happened is the cached version of the page doesn't know about this one as it was created after the template was added. Editing the article would have the same effect, and it may fix itself eventually.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's OK now. Jowa fan (talk) 11:09, 21 July 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.