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. Joyous! | Talk 00:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Square (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)

Fails the notability guidelines. This article is a recreation of a page previously redirected per an earlier AfD and deleted per an RfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of notability. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think it's not similar enough for a G4 speedy, but there's still no evidence of notability any better than the last go-round. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2016 (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.