Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polydivisible 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Prova-nome (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polydivisible number

[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)

Fails WP:GNG and seems to be entirely WP:OR. Since the article's creation in 2003, this entire article had for sixteen years and still has now a total of zero references. The only external link in the article links to a discussion on a mathematical problem that is only very remotely connected to the topic at hand. And while there are a few OEIS integer sequences sprinkled here and there about polydivisible numbers, so there are many other OEIS integer sequences that do not have corresponding Wikipedia articles. If an entry on the OEIS is the only reason for it's existence, then it isn't really notable enough for Wikipedia. This, along with the original research issues, is reason for deletion. Prova-nome (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is interesting. There are four or so links to OEIS and there are mentions of it on several blogs, etc. However, I didn't find it in anything like MathWorld, so otherwise it is completely lacking in references. I also suspect that it is almost entirely WP:OR. So I would probably delete it unless some good references are found. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. A lack of sources in the article does NOT mean that the article isn't notable. In fact, it was never mentioned by the nominator whether sources exist, but only that the one external link isn't competent enough. AFD is not cleanup also means that AFD isn't an excuse for people to add sources to the article. While it feels good to say that it fails WP:OR due to no sources being present, WP:OR only applies to content in which no reliable, published sources exist. And reliable, published sources definitely exist, which also proves notability for being an important number sequence. Utopes (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The sequences are referenced, but are there any references for the math? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A little searching found coverage of this in at least four books: Malcolm Lines A Number for your Thoughts (1986) [1], David Wells The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers (1997) [2], Noel Botham The Amazing Book of Useless Information (2008) [3], and Matt Parker Things to Make and Do in the Fourth Dimension (2014) [4]. I think that's enough to demonstrate ongoing interest in this concept (even though such base-dependent sequences don't interest me personally) and show a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Those references need to be added to the article to establish notability of the subject. But is the mathematics referenced? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - They do not need to be added to establish notability. It is existence of sources, not their addition to articles, that establishes notability. See WP:ARTN. And AfD is not for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2019 (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.