Deletion of Mathmo

Comment: as a term it violates  and  there is also no establishment of notability. Name drops are trivial coverage. The link above to google news is nothing more than half a dozen name drops of the term. The only source which gives it any coverage is a university/college level news paper which does not confer notability. If some reliable sources start writing articles about the term Mathmo, then feel free to recreate the article. As it stands its a term that is barely used in mainstream language and is barely on the radar. We're not a compendium of all human knowledge and that we're not a place for things you made up at school one day (which the policy may still say, if not its rather appropriate here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NOT)

Comment: as a 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: I'd say move to Wiktionary, normally, but there's absolutely no real notability established, nothing that can be substantially used towards this end can be found on Google or Gnews, and, of course, it violates 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The word, in and of itself, has gained enough attention by 3rd party – reliable – verifiable – creditable , as shown here http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Mathmo%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives sources to meet the otability|Notability guidelines established by Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: How does linking to otability address notability?  It doesn't matter whether it's a word, that's irrelevant. ''Fatigable'' and ''grandiose'' are words, but they don't have articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Dicdef, and a slang dicdef at that.  Wikipedia is explicitly |NOT a dictionary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)