Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permutational Number System

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. ✗plicit 03:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Permutational Number System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Unprodded with no improvement; prod rationale was 'Poorly decided acceptance by User:Dr vulpes of a poorly written draft whose only real source is an unpublished and un-peer-reviewed "ejournal" preprint'. On my talk, the draft creator and unprodder admits both to being the author of the preprint and to the fact that it is unpublished. Fails WP:NOR and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok go take a look now I think everything is fixed now. Tagging @David Eppstein Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  By "fixed" you mean made vague to the point of describing nothing specific, while removing the one bad source that uses the phrase "permutational number system". You have left the article with no sources at all that use the title phrase, or that talk about any class of number systems other than the factorial number system, which is standard, already well covered in its own article, has a different name, and only mentioned by way of a see also entry here. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In a search I could only find the one unpublished preprint covering the subject. Preprints are not reliable sources in the Wikipedia WP:RS sense, so this topic fails notability guidelines and is not even verifiable in RS. Without verifiability, there is nothing to base any content on, so that the topic doesn't even merit a mention in another article. If this topic ever becomes well-known enough to be covered in a reliable source like a review article, we can reconsider. Until then, the article should be deleted and the paragraph about it in factorial number system should go, too. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: agreed, basically just one reference to this term and that is the paper by apparently the same author of the W8ikipedia page. It WP:TOOSOON at best, there certainly aren't sufficient secondary or tertiary sources to establish notability. Just to emphasize, there is only one Wikipedia page linking to it, and that was just shoe-horned in by the page creator. Lithopsian (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tried to improve this article but I'll be honest with y'all my lack of math background prevents me from addressing the errors here at a high enough level. Sorry @David Eppstein for trying to correct my mistake and be collaborative, I'll see myself out. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom is blunt in his criticism, but we recognize the honest mistake in accepting this at AfC and your good-faith efforts in trying to rescue the article. This article is tricky to adjudicate because it contains a number of RS for background, but not about the topic in particular, and only one inadequate source for the actual topic of the article. It's easy to be fooled in this case and really requires an understanding of the material to tease apart what part of the topic is reliably sourced and what is not. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G7 Atavoidturk (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ineligible at this point because the article has been substantially edited by at least two contributors. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and a request for future: When I wrote this article, I didn't have a good understanding of Wikipedia policy. I was trying to solve a math problem for my 11-year-old son and later after 3-4 months realized that nothing is published about it. So, I published it in pre-print and wrote a Wikipedia article as I was excited knowing that I have invented two new concepts in mathematics. Based on current Wikipedia policy, I am myself voting for deletion. But at the same time, I have some requests -

• Source for evidence should be for events/news etc., but for pure science which itself is a fact can be verified by experts. This is important because there are many people with a new idea but do not have the expertise/guidance/money to get it printed in a notable general. Wikipedia can serve as a platform for such "science-articles" with some tag specifying that it is verified by Wikipedia reviewer and not any other article. Please do consider this in future whenever there is a. chance for policy modifications.
• Whenever there is an article that is not plagiarized and completely new, but is written by immature/new authors, it would be great if Wikipedia can provide a helping hand to get it published somewhere. (If point 1 is not possible). I would be really grateful if subject experts like Professor @David Eppstein can provide me with guidance about my work.
• Please see if the paragraph can be added in factorial number system as mentioned by @Mark viking

Pateldeepesh (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2023 (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.