Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy number code

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Happy number code
I am sure this is a very fine proof, and I mean no disrespect to the author, but I believe this qualifies as original research. Indrian 00:34, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * What on earth? :) I just wrote a page "proving" a certain interesting claim about the happy numbers. I "vote" against deletion of course, but please let me know if this page is inappropriate in any way. Oleg Alexandrov | talk 00:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from deleting what other posters have written on this page. Indrian 00:37, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

You are fast guys! I did not delete anything. I think it was my browser cache which screwed things up. Writing a lousy code is original research? :) Oleg Alexandrov | talk 00:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way, this is not "original research". The happy number article actually has a reference to the "proof" which I put on the happy number code page. Oleg Alexandrov | talk


 * Delete or Move to WikiSource. Original research belongs elsewhere.  Transwiki it to wikisource and link appropriately over in happy number, if you must, but neither code demonstrating a theorem nor the full text of a proof of a theorem belong on Wikipedia. --Kelly Martin 00:59, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Megan1967 02:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Oleg, "Original research" is a sort of shorthand phrase here. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, is a secondary reference work in which the articles are syntheses of well-known, established results that have been published elsewhere and can be referenced. You're actually supposed to Cite your sources although I'm afraid this is more acknowledged in the breach than in the observance. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for dissemination of new work. You could write about a computer code that someone else had published, in Dr. Dobbs or whatever, and if it were on the Web you could link to it, but you can't put a new program that you wrote yourself into the main Wikipedia namespace. You could put it on your personal user page, if you liked. In fact, that might be the best disposition for this material. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikisource. I think the interesting thing here is the output of the program, not the program itself. I have to agree that the program falls under the 'original research' clause, so belongs more in wikisource.  However, the output, that is the table of 163 numbers and their happy-number derivation sequences, is not original research and is rather useful to someone interested in exploring happy numbers.  Wikipedia often has sub-article "list" pages and such pointed to by an article, and I think Happy number could point to a list page for the 163 entries.  But just transwiking the whole existing Happy number code page would serve both uses. -R. S. Shaw 04:53, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
 * Concur Kappa 06:00, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. It's not even a very good program, a better one would stop the calculations and highlight the last result as soon this result was 4, 16, 37, 58, 89, 145, 42, 20, or 1, making the pattern even clearer. Andrewa 05:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Wyss 07:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Josh Cherry 22:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi all. Sorry to have caused all this. I was not aware of the original research requirement. I reformulated the happy number article, so that it does not depend on this page. So, you can delete it any time. Oleg Alexandrov | talk 00:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, it's not a problem, no harm done. Hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia, sorry if you got a rough introduction. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Note that the Matlab program does not in fact prove the claim.  dbenbenn | talk 21:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What I stated is that if you start in the range 1 to 163, and do some iterations, then you end up either in the 4, 16, ..., 4 loop, or at 1. So, the matlab code proves what I said it is supposed to prove. Not that it matters of course, you all have a point about this particular topic. But, just for the record. Oleg Alexandrov | talk 23:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I was wrong. dbenbenn | talk 23:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.