- 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. Deor ( talk) 12:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Stellar prime number
- Stellar prime number ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unrelated to star primes. Fails Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), WP:MADEUP. Only reference is to a preprint selfpublished (see [1]) by Heitor Baldo four days before article was created by User:Heitorb. External link is to a page by Baldo. PrimeHunter ( talk) 12:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. The 3-page preprint cited claims that the "stellar primes" are a new class, and was written in April 2014. There is no evidence this is regarded as significant by anyone but the author. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 22:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. My notability threshold is low for pieces of mathematical research — I would like to see published research on the topic from multiple independent research groups — but this doesn't even meet that standard. There is only one source and it's not reliably published. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. Performing a few examples quickly reveals non-primes. There is even a non-prime in one of the sets. The "pre-print" article is nothing but unpublishable conjectures, possibly to support the hoax. I am One of Many ( talk) 00:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a hoax. The listing of 27 instead of 29 in 3-stellar primes is probably just a typo. The preprint lists 29, and later says "the name stellar prime number was choosen because we can write them as illustrate the figure below". Amateur mathematicians invent names for prime forms all the time. The preprint author does not pretend it's an existing name, and the Wikipedia author is probably just the COI preprint author trying to get more attention for their non-notable work.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 02:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- 3 + 5 + 7 + 11 + 29 = 55
I am One of Many (
talk) 03:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know why you posted that. Did you call it a hoax because you think the author claims the sum is always a prime? He made no such claim. The preprint for example says "3+5+7=15, that isn't prime". PrimeHunter ( talk) 10:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- 3 + 5 + 7 + 11 + 29 = 55
I am One of Many (
talk) 03:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a hoax. The listing of 27 instead of 29 in 3-stellar primes is probably just a typo. The preprint lists 29, and later says "the name stellar prime number was choosen because we can write them as illustrate the figure below". Amateur mathematicians invent names for prime forms all the time. The preprint author does not pretend it's an existing name, and the Wikipedia author is probably just the COI preprint author trying to get more attention for their non-notable work.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 02:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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.