Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta numerals

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

Delta numerals

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

Delete - yes, also fails WP:MADEUP. The Armands Strazds article doesn't look too notable either. Blythwood (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete - possible WP:CSD#A11. DrStrauss talk 13:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; Not sure which existing topic as per WP:CSD#A10 do you have in mind. Suranadira (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Suranadira: fat finger, meant A11! DrStrauss talk 14:02, 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 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]

@David Eppstein: Thanks for the suggestion about WP:Notability (numbers)! Will try to rewrite the WP Delta Numerals article for the MathWorld and PlanetMath. Suranadira (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding your spam there will not change my mind about whether it is notable here. See also another AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armands Strazds (3rd nomination). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 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]

Blank and redirect: Not particularly notable, but it can redirect to Armands Strazds‎. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:58, 4 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.L3X1 My 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. WP:MADEUP. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:52, 6 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.