Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisscross method

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. Valley2city^‽ 18:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crisscross method

[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 is a how-to article describing a technique for writing chemical formulas. It seems like an almost trivial method, with just a single source (a textbook that mentions it on one page). It does not seem that this method is notable enough to satisfy WP:N (and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK). I asked for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Crisscross method and got an agreement that AfD would be appropriate. —Bkell (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion Fails WP:N and is of limited applicability even within the chemistry scope it discusses. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in present form. A quick check on Scholar shows that there are at least a dozen methodologies spanning computer science, chemistry, mathematics, image processing, medicine... that all come under the name of "crisscross". I suspect it would be possible to write an article giving short treatments of all these, but that would look substantially different from this chemistry-only one, and require a good deal of work, starting with a blank slate. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly trivial, a mundane mneumonic not a scientific process. Reywas92^Talk 20:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fluff suitable for a middle- or high-school textbook, perhaps, but not here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SIGCOV. Also, this is used more in mathematics than chemistry. FWIW, I've taught middle school science and math. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2020 (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.