The result was redirect to Fibonacci number#Origins. Consensus is that this should not be a separate article. What, if anything, should be merged is something for the expert editors to discuss. I'm pointing the redirect at the section that discusses this topic, but the redirect target can be changed as may be necessary. Sandstein 10:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The term used here, "Gopala–Hemachandra number", is a seldom-used neologism and does not really make sense anyway; under the definition in the article, every number is a "Gopala–Hemachandra number". Most of the content of the article is peripheral historical discussion of Indian mathematicians' contributions to the study of the Fibonacci sequence, all of which is discussed in more detail at Fibonacci number. The remaining verifiable information in the article amounts to a single sentence noting that the term "Gopala–Hemachandra sequence" is sometimes used for a certain type of sequence; this single sentence could easily be incorporated into Fibonacci number if desired. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 16:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
I should add that while the main claim of the article, "A Gopala–Hemachandra number is a term in a sequence of the form …", may appear to be well cited, this appearance is misleading. Two of the cited papers are unpublished, and at least one of the cited papers does not actually use the phrase. The currency of the term "Gopala–Hemachandra number" appears to be extremely limited. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 17:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Fibonacci number#Origins. Consensus is that this should not be a separate article. What, if anything, should be merged is something for the expert editors to discuss. I'm pointing the redirect at the section that discusses this topic, but the redirect target can be changed as may be necessary. Sandstein 10:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The term used here, "Gopala–Hemachandra number", is a seldom-used neologism and does not really make sense anyway; under the definition in the article, every number is a "Gopala–Hemachandra number". Most of the content of the article is peripheral historical discussion of Indian mathematicians' contributions to the study of the Fibonacci sequence, all of which is discussed in more detail at Fibonacci number. The remaining verifiable information in the article amounts to a single sentence noting that the term "Gopala–Hemachandra sequence" is sometimes used for a certain type of sequence; this single sentence could easily be incorporated into Fibonacci number if desired. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 16:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply
I should add that while the main claim of the article, "A Gopala–Hemachandra number is a term in a sequence of the form …", may appear to be well cited, this appearance is misleading. Two of the cited papers are unpublished, and at least one of the cited papers does not actually use the phrase. The currency of the term "Gopala–Hemachandra number" appears to be extremely limited. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 17:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply