Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangle of power notation

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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle of power notation

[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)

Sourcing currently in the article is one forum (MSE) thread, two blog-posts, one youtube video from a math popularizer, and one page that is hosted on a university website but is of unclear authorship, which describes this notation as "so young that one could conceive of it as still gestating in the womb and "new and as-yet-unaccepted by the general mathematics community". Google Scholar finds no hits for the topic (searching for both the title of the article and "'triangle notation' logarithm"). The PROD rationale "Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage found." certainly describes this sourcing; it was reverted by Kvng, while adding one of the two blog posts, which doesn't suggest the presence of sources of appropriate quality. Maybe some day someone will write some RS about this subject. JBL (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally PRODed the article, and I stand by the assessment that there simply isn't coverage.— Moriwen (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a cute idea, but not notable. –jacobolus (t) 23:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly per WP:NOTINVENTED and WP:NEO. I tried to tag this as an A11 speedy deletion, before the prod, but this was contested on weak grounds. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability; indeed, the quality of the sources and prose of the article suggest a lack of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 10:25, 19 March 2024 (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.