Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fircle

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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fircle

Fircle (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)

Hoax? I can't find any literature on this shape. Gaff (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In the words of Senator Vreenak, "It's a fake!" schetm (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it is BS, but I was tempted by a redirect to Squircle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax. Even the bits aren't right: there is no such thing as a "regular parallelogram", since all parallelograms have four (pairwise!) parallel sides, and if all lengths are the same it's called a rhombus. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hoax at best. It also seems that there are more "fircle" on the internet, although no none has discussed it in depth. VandVictory (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. I could not find any reliable references to this shape. The Snowager-is awake 05:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a word used quite often in my community, and I was glad when I had seen that it was finally on the internet. I'm surprised it wasn't on here sooner. 15:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.61.28 (talk)

• Sorry, but we need for your claim to have some degree of Wikipedia:Verifiability from a reliable WP:SOURCE. That is one of the 3 Wikipedia:Core content policies. Please also stop adding Urban Dictionary as a reference, since it appears you created that hoax article as well. --Gaff (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete No notability. PianoDan (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2015 (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.