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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metaplectomorphism[edit]

Metaplectomorphism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No references in Math Reviews or Zentralblatt. One mention in Google Scholar, zero useful in Google Books. At best not a notable concept, probably a one-off, possibly even a hoax (article appears to be nonsense). Boodlepounce (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See what I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Segal–Shale–Weil distribution about not even the inventor of this protologism using it outwith Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No scholar hits. Yet another WP:OR piece from the serial original researcher Glogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No meaningful hits, WP:MADEUP term. -- 202.124.74.111 (talk) 05:28, 17 March 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.