Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Perfect Numbers


 * 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 per WP:SNOW Mandsford 22:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy Perfect Numbers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable intersection of two unrelated integer sequences, one of which is base-dependent and the other not. Prod contested by creator. The article mentions the first 3 numbers which are both a happy number and perfect number. Several others of the 47 known perfect numbers at List of perfect numbers are also happy numbers (starting with the 11th with Mersenne exponent 107 and 65 digits), but it seems nobody has bothered to test for this intersection. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't think there is anything special about being both a happy number and a perfect number. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The fact that one is base-dependent and the other not tells me that where the two intersect has no deep mathematical meaning. Guy Macon (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sources to indicate that this is a notable concept or that the term "happy perfect numbers" has been used to describe these numbers; good reasons (given above) to assume that such sources do not exist; not even listed at OEIS. So just a random intersection of two unrelated sets of integers. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. And they are all Even! :) Nageh (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable intersection.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - a typical person should be able to realize that "A Happy Perfect number is a number that is both a Happy Number and a Perfect Number." No need for a Wikipedia page to tell them that.  " Pepper "   21:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, as above. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although being in OEIS is not a sufficient condition for notability of an integer sequence, I think it's almost surely a necessary one. Regardless, the real problem is the unavailability of published sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2011 (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.