Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compositorial


 * 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 merge to Primorial. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Compositorial

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. The prod tag was previously replaced with a merge tag, and the merge to Composite number completed, but the merge was undone. 96.41.0.15 (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to a small section or just a paragraph in Primorial. Since the merge and undoing, I added a couple of references for verifiability. The topic is not close to notable, so should be merged. Compositorial is contrasted with primorial in some sources; the compositorial and primorial are complementary sets of the total factorial. Hence I think primorial is the best target and due weight is better achieved in this more specialized article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have left a pointer to this AfD at Talk:Primorial. I really think that notifying the editors of the affected article should be a required part of making a merge proposal within an AfD, since otherwise the likely outcome is similar to what already happened here: the editors of the merge target article object to the merge and revert it (as is proper procedure according to WP:BRD) but then the content that was supposed to be merged is either effectively deleted or restored, neither of which matches the consensus of the deletion discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting the notice. I've been slapped on the wrist before for prematurely taking actions toward merger before an AfD closes, so it is best an independent editor do this. I suppose proposed redirects have the same problem, although they are less invasive of the target article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. The only valid hits I could find on Google scholar were self-published popular math article 0804.2277 (which says only that 1728 is a compositorial cube) and a recent self-published book probably copied from Wikipedia. A036691 has nothing of interest to say about this. I don't think there's enough non-trivial and in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, nor even enough to justify merging with primorial.
 * Oops, forgot to sign this. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Primorial and merge the content into that article. The concept is obscure but there are some minor references, like the David Wells book cited in the article and The Prime Pages. Gap9551 (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge if needed as this seems potentially useful content. SwisterTwister   talk  04:47, 22 April 2016 (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.