Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zuckerman 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. So Why 15:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zuckerman number

WP:NOT#OR Kmhkmh (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -complicated process to get it listed - anyhow here are some more detailed reasons. The related article in the German WP was deleted a few days ago due to a lack of references and possible OF. In Tattersall (the given reference) the name "zuckerman number" is only mentioned on the side in an excercise (see [1]). Moreover there it is used only for base 10 (contrary to the definition in the article). Aside from Tattersall there seem to be no other sources - at least a preliminary search using google scholar, mathscinet and zentralblatt math hasn't turned up anything other than Tattersall. Googling yields only 2 somewhat reasonable references on OEIS and PlanetMath, however OEIS gives as reference Wikipedia (ouch!) and the PlanetMath entry lists only Tattersall and seems to be written by the same author (CompositeFan) as the wikipedia article. Moreover that author got blocked due to using socket accounts and seems to have left Wikipedia altogether. On the german WP there was a longer discussion and in the end all editors with a math background voted for deleting it, i suggest to do the same here as well, unless somebody can produce an reputable reference other than tattersal. Please note that the math part of the article is correct and somewhat natural, but without a reference in literature that constitutes original thought (Tattersall is not enough as explained above).--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Kmhkmh. NN -- Constructive editor (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any additional references and I agree that the Tattersall reference is not quite enough for an article. By the way, the German discussion is at de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/6. März 2009#Zuckerman-Zahl (gelöscht). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's possible that an article about mathematician and prolific author Herbert S. Zuckerman would survive deletion, although in the shallow standards for Wikipedia notability, he's probably not as important as a ballplayer. Mandsford (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mathematician Zuckerman most likely hasn't anything to do with that number to begin with. That aside this discussion is about the deletion of the current zuckerman number article due to lack of sources, it is not a discussion about Zuckerman, his merits as a mathematician or any potential article about Zuckerman himself. I don't think there are any objections for having the latter anyhow, at least not by me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability, with respect to a stand-alone article, requires "...significant coverage in reliable sources...", so one reference to "Zuckerman number" is not enough to establish it as a notable eponymous term. -- Crowsnest (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2009 (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.