Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holor

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. There isn't a clear consensus for anything but deletion here, but I would be happy to refund the content to the userspace of anyone who wishes to perform a merger. Vanamonde (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holor[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This mathematical entity has some coverage in some Google books, but that is only in primary sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I was hoping that this was somehow related to holographic algorithm (a notable topic) but that's "holant" not "holor". Anyway, this seems to be a neologism from a 1986 book that has gained only a very small amount of traction in the study of sensory perception, and none at all in mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A term coined by two people that hasn't had enough pickup by others to qualify as notable. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An approach that never gained secondary attention among the experts. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to Parry Moon, but there is so little coverage, it is hard to argue that it is a plausible search term. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Parry Moon and/or Domina Eberle Spencer. In 2012, I found the word holor in the book Vectors (Moon and Spencer, Van Nostrand, 1965) and wondered why I had not heard of it. Wikipedia told me that they had coined the word, and that was helpful to me at the time. Wikipedia's coverage should be similar to its coverage of the word affinor. JonH (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merging and redirecting would be best. The redirect should probably be to a section. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2018 (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.