Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational numerals


 * 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. There was some sentiment to redirect or merge, but the suggested target is almost certainly going to be deleted as well (the ongoing AfD looks pretty snowy). -- RoySmith (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Rational numerals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is entirely based about two very recent articles by the same author, which appears to be also the author of the article (the userid is the title of the main article). There is thus a conflict of interest. One of these two references is self published. The other references (by other authors) are clearly not reliable (master thesis and video presentations), and cannot be considered as secondary sources. The lack of secondary source shows that the article is original research and does not satisfies WP criteria of notability. D.Lazard (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, basically per WP:NOR. The only actual source for this is the Strazds 2016 paper, it's in a journal that (until the recent takedown) was listed in Beall's list of predatory open access journals (so even that one source is not reliable), and Google scholar can't even find the paper itself let alone any publications for it. This doesn't pass WP:GNG nor the more specific guidelines in WP:Notability (numbers). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Added after seeing other comments suggesting a redirect to rational number after the deletion: I have no objection to this. There aren't many hits for "rational numeral" in Google scholar, but what is there suggests that rational number is the correct redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete; I prodded this earlier. Fails WP:MADEUP. Blythwood (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, as a new source was found that can be considered reliable: Dzenītis, Andris (2006). "Zelta grāmatas rakstītājs" [The Writer of the Golden Book]. Mūzikas Saule (in Latvian) (2): 8–11. Retrieved March 4, 2017. Another source: a peer-reviewed OEIS contribution containing a description of the basic principles of the Rational Numerals: https://oeis.org/A248646. Suranadira (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete; The new source is just an interview with the author. It is not secondary source. And in the video  Tenisons does neither explained what is Rational numerals nor said anything about it. So it is not secondary source either. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment; In my oppinion an interview with the author clearly conforms to the WP definition of the secondary source. Tenisons explains the Rational Numerals using an introduction film. He also discusses the film, and responds to the questions from the auditory on it. Suranadira (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment; In different sources "Rational numerals" may be also called "the Golden Book", "Suranadira", in Bengali সুরনদীর, "the River of Air", "the River of Heaven", "the River of Music", "the River of Tones". Suranadira (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: Another related article by the same author is also nominated for deletion. See Articles for deletion/Delta numerals and Articles for deletion/Armands Strazds (3rd nomination).


 * Delete. As per nom. I don't see how anyone could interpret an interview with the author as a secondary source–straight from the horse's mouth is pretty much the meaning of primary source! --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Blank and redirect: Not particularly notable, but it can redirect to Armands Strazds‎. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Just like to remind everyone here that ATA include lack of secondary sources and WP scowls at Primary Sources, it doesn't forbid them.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Armands Strazds. No evidence of independent notability.  I don't think anything should be merged, but, if the target is kept, perhaps something could be merged.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Made up by the author of the article. No legitimate merger target - the author doesn't meet the GNG so their article won't be here for long. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:MADEUP.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - per non-notable neologism. I don't think redirect to Strazds would be useful as it seems more plausable as search term for rational numbers, and would be an odd place for such searchers to end up. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge parts to Armands Strazds‎, retarget to rational numbers, and hatnote to Strazds. Does not seem notable on its own, and seems more likely that people are using a plausible alternative for rational numbers than this obscure term. Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - since Armands Strazds‎ looks certain to be deleted now, merging won't happen. No objection to redirecting. 21:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice that. Unless it somehow survives, the hatnote won't be needed though. This should be retargeted (or deleted and retargeted) to rational numbers as a plausible search term instead of outright deletion though. Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:12, 8 March 2017 (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.