Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ageometresia

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 redirect to Dyscalculia. If anyone wishes to add content on this secondary meaning to Dyscalculia, they're more than welcome, I've left the page history visible. Ajpolino (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the close to delete per User_talk:Ajpolino#Redirect_at_Ageometresia and WP:IAR with the hope that this can save us the time of a pointless re-discussion. In short, I think I closed this without fully understanding the situation. Had I done my homework more appropriately, I would have seen that "ageometresia" is never used to mean "dyscalculia", and a redirect is therefore inappropriate. Ajpolino (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ageometresia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article is about the word, and seems to me to be contrary to WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. The concept of ageometresia as a form of discalculia may merit an entry, but that is not what the current page is about. There had been attempts to transwiki it to Wiktionary, but it was not wanted there. Felix QW (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Felix QW (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to Dyscalculia - Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Per WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Additional discussion at WP:RUBBISH. That said, it seems like there's a few things going on here. First, why isn't the article titled "ageometria"? Second, does "ageometria" meet WP:GNG? From my quick scan of sources, it seems to. Third, should this just be a part of the Dyscalculia article? My opinion is "probably"; no reason this topic couldn't be a paragraph in that article, since it seems the two are often discussed together in secondary sources. Suriname0 (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this closer, I'm less sure that the subject meets GNG; looks like the article may have triggered some cytogenesis that seeped its way into some conference proceedings. Pinging @David Eppstein:, who functionally wrote the article's content, to take a modern look. Suriname0 (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I put a notice on the talk pages of the WikiProjects interested in Dyscalculia; maybe we get some broader input from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix QW (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nominator--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2022 (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.