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.
WP:OR based on a single source, which is not reliably published nor cited in any secondary source. This is also
WP:COI, as the username of the article's author is the first word of the title of the source (Suranadira).
See also
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational numerals, for a related article also nominated for deletion
D.Lazard (
talk) 10:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
@
DrStrauss: Of course it is "invented"! All mathematical truths are invented – by God, or nature, or whatever.
Suranadira (
talk) 14:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Although OEIS is to my mind reliable as a source, it's not by itself worth much for notability, and doesn't source the use of these numbers for a numeral system. Other than that we have only a self-published work. So this fails
WP:GNG and
WP:Notability (numbers). —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
"You are welcome" would suffice.
Suranadira (
talk) 20:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The only independent source is OEIS, which is not enough to show notability.
Alexei Kopylov (
talk) 20:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. As per nom. And, if I am interpreting the notation correctly (nonn) OEIS doesn't consider it a notable sequence either. (Sorry about that) --
Bill Cherowitzo (
talk) 20:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The 'nonn' keyword means an OEIS sequence containing no negative terms.
Suranadira (
talk) 20:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The 'nice' keyword (or rather, here, its absence) is how OEIS distinguishes interesting sequences from the rest. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 23:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
For less interesting sequences OEIS uses the keyword 'less', and for sequences that may be deleted later at the discretion of the editor 'probation'. Neither is the case here.
Suranadira (
talk) 00:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Per the related AfDs, don't Bludgeon by disputing everyones vote here, Suranadira. Unless of course you work for Snuggums. In that case, go ahead.
L3X1My Complaint Desk 21:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
In case of Bill Cherowitzo I wasn't disputing the vote, just helping out with some OEIS-speak.
Suranadira (
talk) 21:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Armands Strazds. No independent evidence of notability. I don't see anything to be merged, but.... —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 03:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Comes very close to
WP:A11 and there's no merger target that has any legitimacy (the creator's article needs the TNT treatment).
Exemplo347 (
talk) 18:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as a non-notable neologism.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 18:31, 6 March 2017 (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.