Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logical abacus

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logical abacus

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

Not a single secondary reliable source uses the term "Logical abacus". All GB and JSTOR results are about the Abacus itself. The article as it stands is original research by synthesis. The Legend of Zorro 02:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Mostly an unneeded and unsourced WP:Content fork of Abacus. Ansh6 6 6 03:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Keep per below, now that I actually know what the article is about. Ansh6 6 6 19:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have cleaned up the article, by removing material about the standard abacus which had no relevance here. It should now be clear that the article is not a content fork. On sources, the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, from which much of the text of this article was taken, is generally to be regarded a reliable source, though as it is now over 100 years old, care has to be taken with it and, where recent sources exist, they are usually to be preferred. Coverage in the Encyclopaedia Britannica should also be taken as a strong indicator of notability - the EB will have used reliable sources back in 1911 and notability is not temporary. There are also in fact quite a few recent reliable sources, including four of] [the] [first] ten GBooks hits. While the article needs rewriting to make its historical context clearer, the topic is certainly notable. PWilkinson (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2013 (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.