Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essentially unique (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially unique[edit]

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

Unsourced dicdef, unsourced since 2006, not notable Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Gpc62 (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now has sources. It's commonplace mathematical terminology (see the "books" and "scholar" search results), so the only real challenge in sourcing is to find the references that explain what they mean best. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOR'easter. Also the page was more than a mere dicdef even before XOR's improvements.– Gpc62 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following XOR'easter's laudable attentions, this is in good shape now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:29, 6 December 2017 (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.