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The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Books shows plenty[1] of sources about this material, mostly texts from the 1920s-1950s. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Squidfryerchef, could you link to a reliable source that provides a non-trivial mention? PhilKnight (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no.1, 3, and 5 of the above search will do to start out with. Listed in many works as a well known material--and has been for over 80 years now. Gardner's book, cited in the article, is the standard work of reference, and I consider anything listed there to be notable. DGG (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree about 1 or 3, however 5 is plausible, and worth adding. PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2008 (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.