Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factoriangular number (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Four keeps as well as the implicit keep from GregariousMadness, based on sources. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Factoriangular number

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is apparently the same page as an article of the same title that was deleted in 2017. It seems that the main difference with the deleted version is that citations to predatory journals have been added. This is not sufficient to insure WP:notability, and the reasons for the first deletion remain all valid. D.Lazard (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm the author of this article. I've added some more recent sources just now. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previous article had five sources all published in bad journals (on Beall's list). The current article [1] has nine sources, of which six appear to be published in bad journals (not indexed in MathSciNet). The three exceptions are Rayaguru, Ruiz (actually should be Gomez Ruiz), and Luca "Pell Factoriangular Numbers". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If there are 3 good sources, that seems plenty for an otherwise non-controversial subject. JeffUK 15:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've removed the "bad" sources, leaving the 3 "good" ones. If those are as it seems sufficient to prove notability, the article has to be kept, or perhaps merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as currently stubified. Three is the magic number, pardon the pun, for WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. It has no mathematical significance, but that's not the criterion we use here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2025 (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.