- 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. Tone 14:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pi Rectangle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of why this is significant. No sources. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is essentially a dictdef, but please don't transwiki it to Wiktionary, because it is also a neologism. --Lambiam 13:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 05:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see any indication that this is a notable mathematical concept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's no indication in the article that a "pi rectangle" is in any way noteable, and can't find any google hits discussing any correlation between pi and rectangles that in any way refers to this concept. RayBarker (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per RayBarker & Lambiam. DICDEF neologism that's not notable. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2009 (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.