Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linear number

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. Michig (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linear number

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

Unsourced neologism for the natural numbers, considered as a degenerate special case of figurate numbers. This was prodded by Wcherowi with the comment "Unsourced and not notable" and then deprodded by Kvng with the comment "Consider merge to Figurate number" but I agree with Wcherowi. Without sources and without notability there is nothing to merge. So I think the better outcome is just to delete this. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be shown that this term has currency in the mathematical community (which seems vanishingly unlikely). --Trovatore (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or redirect to Figurate number, and the latter

(1) only if the term is mentioned in the latter article (which should get done if it hasn't been done yet and if it's appropriate) and

(2) only if one can either show that this term has some currency or if one can show that the use of the terms has been proposed in the literature (in which latter can it should say only that's it's been proposed or suggested).

Michael Hardy (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not actually a proposed synonym of natural number, but rather a proposed name for natural-number-as-a-degenerate-special-case-of-figurate-numbers. Mathematicians' conventions for definitions fall short of encompassing that kind of definition in a regular way. Maybe that will change in the future. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete. No indication this is anything other than a neologism and hoax.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete. agree with the above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.155.181 (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Triangular number or gnomon (figure). I added four sources to the article. This term has been used before in in discussion of triangular numbers, and there is a connection to Pythagoras. In sum total, the sources I found are not in enough depth to satisfy notability, but a few basics seem verifiable. The term as used here, is the gnomon of triangular numbers, so it would make sense to either merge just the initial paragraph to triangular number or gnomon (figure). --Mark viking (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Update David Eppstein has thrown doubt on the Deza sources, so that just leaves the Gazalé book. I was comfortable merging with multiple RS, but not just a single such source. The historical triangular gnomon should probably be mentioned somewhere, but not as a linear number. Without sufficient sourcing, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with JohnBlackburne—made-up names should not be elevated to redirects unless good sources indicate the term has been used. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What problems did you find with the Deza or Gazalé book sources? Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deza's "Encyclopedia of Distances" has text copied from Wikipedia and shouldn't be used as a source per WP:CIRCULAR, but I don't know of such problems with the figurate number book. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gazalé book has one mention of the term: "The order n linear number is none other than n itself, and its gnomon is 1." That does not establish notability. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. I've changed my recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not notable (certainly not enough to warrant an article or a redirect). It might be worth mentioning it as a very simple example on the figurate number page. jraimbau (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourcing is inadequate for notability. DeVerm (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' BUT there needs to be some encyclopedic house keeping at the same time. I cannot find quickly any references to 'linear number', so probably not notable, but there are heaps of references to linear number pattern, which is actually a synonym for arithmetic progression, of which a linear number as defined is the simplest non degenerate example. Given the many references to linear number pattern I suggest this page be changed to a dab page pointing to figurate number (linear number) and arithmetic progression (linear number pattern), with also a redirect from linear number pattern to arithmetic progression. (By the way I had to look at figurate number to work out what the linear number article was really talking about. If it stays is needs a bit of a rewrite.) Aoziwe (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This is akin to the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax- giving a misleadingly grandiose description and name to a familiar concept just to make it seem more than it is. Reyk _YO! 08:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except there is no attempt to mislead anyone here or play around with and repackage characteristics ? Eno Lirpa (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2016 (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.