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. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trithogonal[edit]

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

Seems to be a neologism, google search only finds two authors who've used it, and those are in the context of matrices rather than lines. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Non-notable neologism. The only usage in Google Web Books and Scholar is for a completely different meaning relating to tridiagonal matrices. No hits on Zentralblatt. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unneeded. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Newly invented, useless word. And don't the copyright notices on the bottom make it eligible for some kind of immediate deletion? Dingo1729 (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nergaal (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not seem legitimate, and it is poorly source, even if that last text is trying to pass as a source, which it is failing to do. Heck, speedy deleting wouldn't be a bad idea either. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:20, 5 April 2011 (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.