Talk:sclenchyma

RFD discussion: August 2019–April 2020
I think this is a mistake for ; it's not etymologically parseable (or is it a ?). See also this ngram. Canonicalization (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In principle, wouldn't it be better as an RfV? There are lots of malformed words that actually exist. Though I do expect this to fail RfV. DCDuring (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not that hard to find a few uses, so rfv would accomplish nothing. I find it hard to believe there would a term with definition and usage identical to sclerenchyma and only differing by the absence of two letters. This isn't casual conversation, where everyone has their own way of saying things- it's technical terminology, the kind of terminology everybody learns in introductory botany courses. I wouldn't even call this a misspelling: it's an obvious typo- the kind of mistake that's very easy to make, but hard to spot because of the repeated letter. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, very rare typo. --Lambiam 08:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as a rare misspelling: does not find "sclenchyma". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleted - TheDaveRoss  19:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)