Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1


 * 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. I am happy to provide the content on request to the author. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about an apparent mathematical theorem, not yet published in reliable sources. So this constitutes original research.

Also nominating
 * Deleted as copies of the same page. `'Míkka>t 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted as copies of the same page. `'Míkka>t 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted as copies of the same page. `'Míkka>t 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete all.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all - Wikipedia is not the place for first publication. JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OEIS is managed/edited by renowned scientist - Neal Sloane, therefore OEIS reference is a Reliable Source ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apovolot (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apovolot (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Google Scholar finds no papers in mathematics by Neal Sloane; but I have posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to ask for comments. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * His name is Neil J. A. Sloane (Google Scholar search); and the OEIS is described in On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. My impression is that Sloane's fact-checking is fairly light (other mathematicians probably have more experience). He said that "Most well-defined submissions get accepted, since an open-door policy seems the best." . I think it's just about a reliable source. It certainly is refered a lot on Wikipedia; see for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:OEIS . -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I also think that Sloane's OEIS is a reliable source, but it doesn't establish notability. Inclusion in one of the printed version might, though. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Entirely non-notable. (A mention in OEIS doesn't imply notability.) --Zundark (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Wikipedia is not where you hand in your dissitation. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Sloane's OEIS is a valuable resource, but it is not in itself a peer-reviewed journal.  It does usually refer to reliable sources when they exist: there are no such references here.  Richard Pinch (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyvio - releasing it here on Wikipedia probably interferes with its inclusion in the planned book mentioned. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the "copyvio" argument in this case. There's no law against including in a book an idea that has appear in Wikipedia.  And that's not our concern; it's that of the author.  If it had been lifted from an existing book then it might be a copyright violation, but I see no indication of that. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is one of the worst-written articles I've seen an a long time, and that's a reason to hesitate when deciding to delete. We find people commenting here who are so ignorant that they haven't even heard of Neil J. A. Sloane.  I'm going to try to figure out what the article says before forming an opinion on whether to delete.  That may take a bit of work since it's not clearly written.  Others should do likewise. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Running down other people for their ignorance is hardly courteous. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And participating in deletion of articles when one is too ignorant of the subject matter to make an informed judgment is a matter of concern. It happens too often. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind being called ignorant - I know I am, in this context, which is why I posted at WikiProject Mathematics to call in those who aren't. But the issue here is not is Povolotsky's mathematics good but has it achieved enough prior publication and independent reference to meet Wikipedia's requirements of notability and no original research? JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is so vaguely written that one cannot be sure of the answers to any of those questions. Its author clearly has no awareness of the usual Wikipedia conventions nor the usual norms of clear writing, and doesn't seem to understand that those would do more for his article's credibility than can insisting on reliability of sources. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Has anyone figured out what this "problem" is? I'm guessing that by "n! + A = k2", he actually meant n! + A = k2.  Saying that for any fixed integer A, that equation has only finitely many solutions for n and k is at least a proposition I can understand. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The three problems are stated in the OEIS entry as:
 * 1) n! + n^2 != m^2 (except for trivial case with n=0, m=1) per conducted calculations doesn't yield any solutions from n=1 to n= 200,000
 * 2) n! + Sum(j^2, j=1, j=n) != m^2 per conducted calculations doesn't yield any solutions from n=1 to n= 2,000,000
 * 3) n! + prime(n) != m^k is too difficult to cover by exhaustive calculations ...
 * JohnCD (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete regardless of this Neil Stone nonsense, which has now even been inserted into the article, the actual article imparts essentially zero information, and makes no useful claim to notability. It's also indescribably badly written, to the extent that if there is a claim of notability its impossible to discern on what basis. MadScot (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. Nsk92 (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   —Nsk92 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. The OEIS sequence is authored by Alexander R. Povolotsky so it is not independent. The article is created by User:Apovolot so very likely WP:COI. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Article comes close to meeting CSD. It is possible that, with the limited source material, this article is unsalvageably incoherent. Also, Povolotsky creating an article about an eponymous conjecture is a conflict of interest. Finally, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and it is not clear from the sole reference if this conjecture has been published. Wronkiew (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have rewritten the article as far as I can to aid the discussion. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I see no reason to change my original !vote for delete. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete OR. Non-notable as pointed out as it seems no to have been published in math journals, and also the author is the same person as the mathematician, IOW serious COI issues. -- Alexf(talk) 09:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW - Re "Notability" and "Original Research" - I have plenty of email responses similar to the one I list below as an example re each of my 3 conjectures.

Regards, Alexander R. Povolotsky

PS You could also ask for opinions of 2 Wikipedia editors, who are familiar with my 3 conjectures: Charles Matthews and Graeme McRae. --Forwarded message --

(E-mail content and e-mail addresses redacted due to privacy concerns.) silverneko (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Apovolot (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Also I would like to point out my opinion that conjectures (which are not theorems but claims, based on computations and common sense, - in other words, conjectures are calls asking to be formally proved ) posted in "Unsolved problems in mathematics" section of the Wikipedia (for the reasons described above) should be treated less rigorously with regards to Original Research requirements. Except for the Richard Guy book there are no "sources" (in the classical sense of it) where such things could be published. Posts in sci.math.research and OEIS should be considered as sufficient sources. Those posts are read by professionals and if post is deemed incredible - then counterclaims, rejections and counter-examples are quickly following. To go further, even proofs nowadays are just posted on the Web pages - consider Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture - he refused to publish it in what Wikipedia calls "credible sources" ... It doesn't make sense to me that Wikipedia, which itself is Web published media, doesn't recognize Web based postings as credible sources ... Apovolot (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Finally I want to reiterate that deletion of problem_2 and problem_3 as copies of problem_1 is not justified ! Those are three DIFFERENT problems - each is unique ! And yes each of those three relates to both Brocard's and Dabrowski ! Of course one might consider replacing those 3 articles with just 3 comments in the Brocard conjecture article - I have no problen with such solution ;-) Apovolot (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Newsgroup posts and self-published web pages are not considered reliable enough to establish notability on Wikipedia. Sure, Perelman didn't submit his proof to a peer-reviewed journal, and Wikipedia still has an article on his proof. However, because it was notable, there are references to the proof in those journals, for example:
 * I think the best bet for this to be covered in Wikipedia is to start with getting published in Unsolved Problems. Wronkiew (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the closing admin will be kind enough to userify the page rather than delete it. This would go a long way toward not WP:BITEing, and the main objective of the editors !voting delete is still accomplished. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Objection to userifying. Wikipedia is encyclopedia not private webhosting service. The conjectures in question are already posted somewhete in the web. No reason to waste wikipedia resources for it. Twri (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the problem gets published in Richard Guy's book, then a userfied version could be adapted to become an article later. As it is, the substantial objection to the article's present existence seems to be that it's new material appearing in Wikipedia for the first time, thus "original research". Michael Hardy (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the problem gets published in Richard Guy's book, then a userfied version could be adapted to become an article later. As it is, the substantial objection to the article's present existence seems to be that it's new material appearing in Wikipedia for the first time, thus "original research". Michael Hardy (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * delete. No independent published discussion. Twri (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't bring my problems to Alexander R. Povolotsky - why is he bringing his here? Problems with WP:OR sink this one. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I did the best I could to redact the e-mail content and e-mail addresses posted by Apovolot due to privacy concerns.  Apovolot, I am sure you acted with all good faith.  Please be advised, however, that posting of e-mail addresses puts one at risk of having those email addresses harvested by a spambot.  Also, I have heard that posting an email written by someone else is possibly a copyright violation.  Lastly, I suspect the email and email address were posted by Apovolot without permission.  At any rate, I deleted the email and addresses to protect the privacy of the sender.  Apovolot and Richard Pinch also have this email on their talk pages so I will delete there as well. I will post on the Admin's Noticeboard in case they feel it is appropriate to oversight or whatever.  I am a new user but I was advised that this is the appropriate action at the Help Desk.  Please revert or correct me as needed!  silverneko (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You seem to have deleted the name of Daniel Asimov, the author of one of the emails. It seems reasonable for anyone arguing in favor of keeping that article to cite that name, since he is, if not famous or "notable" (in Wikipedia's sense of the word), and least a respected mathematician whose name some of us will recognize. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.