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 term "strictly non-palindromic number" does not appear to have significant coverage in peer-reviewed math papers, so it appears to fail
WP:GNG.
GeoffreyT2000 (
talk) 00:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I believe that OEIS counts as a reliable published source; its peer-review process is strict and multi-leveled. But that's only one and we need multiple sources. I couldn't find any others that cover this concept in depth and appear reliable (there are some random sources like
[1] that use the title phrase, apparently copied from Wikipedia; they aren't in-depth, are not reliable for mathematics, and anyway fail
WP:CIRCULAR). —
David Eppstein (
talk) 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Only reference is an OEIS article that essentially shows the concept exists. Not enough
WP:SIGCOV to warrant a
WP:GNG pass. FrankAnchor 03:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete The OEIS by itself does not establish notability as it catalogs hundreds upon hundreds of non-notable sequences.
Partofthemachine (
talk) 06:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I would agree that this page is a non-essential type of math page. It's more a "having fun with numbers" kind of page, and is probably why it isn't referenced in any paper. But it doesn't mean someone isn't going to talk about these numbers in some distant future. Why delete an article already written that isn't wrong or bothering anyone? Sometimes OEIS descriptions are hard to read for the common people, and an wikipedia article on the subject is typically easier to digest.
Dhrm77 (
talk) 18:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Dhrm77Why delete an article already written that isn't wrong or bothering anyone? Because of
WP:Notability: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention." (even if there is nothing technically wrong with the contents itself).
PatrickR2 (
talk) 20:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I was just trying to say that, even though it is not notable today, who is to say that in the future, a new fad about palindromic numbers is not going to start, making these notable. Then the article would have to be rewritten. That's double work and a complete waste of time. I would most likely not have written that article. But since it already exist, I would not be in favor or deleting it.
Dhrm77 (
talk) 21:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per lack of notability.
PatrickR2 (
talk) 20:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
weak keep Has an OEIS entry with some discussion and also shows up in a 1989 paper of Richard Guy, ""Conway's RATS and other reversals" in American Mathematical Monthly which is a prominent math publication. Arguably this is enough to meet
WP:RS since there are two reliable sources.
JoshuaZ (
talk) 19:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Palindromic number, where I think including a little content about this is on-topic and naturally fits in. Currently it has only a one-sentence mention there.
Adumbrativus (
talk) 06:41, 3 November 2022 (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.
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 term "strictly non-palindromic number" does not appear to have significant coverage in peer-reviewed math papers, so it appears to fail
WP:GNG.
GeoffreyT2000 (
talk) 00:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I believe that OEIS counts as a reliable published source; its peer-review process is strict and multi-leveled. But that's only one and we need multiple sources. I couldn't find any others that cover this concept in depth and appear reliable (there are some random sources like
[1] that use the title phrase, apparently copied from Wikipedia; they aren't in-depth, are not reliable for mathematics, and anyway fail
WP:CIRCULAR). —
David Eppstein (
talk) 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Only reference is an OEIS article that essentially shows the concept exists. Not enough
WP:SIGCOV to warrant a
WP:GNG pass. FrankAnchor 03:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete The OEIS by itself does not establish notability as it catalogs hundreds upon hundreds of non-notable sequences.
Partofthemachine (
talk) 06:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I would agree that this page is a non-essential type of math page. It's more a "having fun with numbers" kind of page, and is probably why it isn't referenced in any paper. But it doesn't mean someone isn't going to talk about these numbers in some distant future. Why delete an article already written that isn't wrong or bothering anyone? Sometimes OEIS descriptions are hard to read for the common people, and an wikipedia article on the subject is typically easier to digest.
Dhrm77 (
talk) 18:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Dhrm77Why delete an article already written that isn't wrong or bothering anyone? Because of
WP:Notability: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention." (even if there is nothing technically wrong with the contents itself).
PatrickR2 (
talk) 20:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I was just trying to say that, even though it is not notable today, who is to say that in the future, a new fad about palindromic numbers is not going to start, making these notable. Then the article would have to be rewritten. That's double work and a complete waste of time. I would most likely not have written that article. But since it already exist, I would not be in favor or deleting it.
Dhrm77 (
talk) 21:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per lack of notability.
PatrickR2 (
talk) 20:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
weak keep Has an OEIS entry with some discussion and also shows up in a 1989 paper of Richard Guy, ""Conway's RATS and other reversals" in American Mathematical Monthly which is a prominent math publication. Arguably this is enough to meet
WP:RS since there are two reliable sources.
JoshuaZ (
talk) 19:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Palindromic number, where I think including a little content about this is on-topic and naturally fits in. Currently it has only a one-sentence mention there.
Adumbrativus (
talk) 06:41, 3 November 2022 (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.