Deletion of Logical abacus

Comment: I have cleaned up the article, by removing material about the standard abacus which had no relevance here. It should now be clear that the article is not a content fork. On sources, the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, from which much of the text of this article was taken, is generally to be regarded a reliable source, though as it is now over 100 years old, care has to be taken with it and, where recent sources exist, they are usually to be preferred. Coverage in the Encyclopaedia Britannica should also be taken as a strong indicator of notability - the EB will have used reliable sources back in 1911 and |notability is not temporary. There are also in fact quite a few recent reliable sources, including http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=74-g3vSAbnoC&pg=PA458 four http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TUsVAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA182 of http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X3u5hJCkobYC&pg=PA22 the http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aGWvA6SiWfMC&pg=PA124 first ten GBooks hits. While the article needs rewriting to make its historical context clearer, the topic is certainly notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)