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. LFaraone 01:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lattice Compatibility Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I can find no evidence that "Lattice compatibility theory" is a notable area of study. All of the Google hits are to K. Boubaker, a known Wikipedia sock-puppeteer who has serially disrupted Wikipedia in order to advance his own original research (see also fr:Wikipédia:Vandalisme_de_longue_durée/Mmbmmmbm). Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Only a handful of papers on the topic, all poorly cited. Not notable. -- 203.171.197.14 (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notability. Ozob (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of the independent sources needed for WP:NPOV and failure to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2013 (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.